tv U.S. House of Representatives Morning Hour CSPAN April 28, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
government employees. a lot of these jobs that are being done are private parties that are bidding these jobs at the cheapest bid they can get. host: i do me to jump in on you, but the house is getting ready to come in. we appreciate all the calls this morning. we are going to take our viewers live to the floor of the house. [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] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. april 28, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable john j. duncan jr. to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize
members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in in -- no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the you may be seated. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for five minutes. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. r. costa: mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize april as national donate a life month. as the co-chair of the congressional organ and tissue donation awareness caucus, i believe it's important to help
people understand that while organ and tissue donation is serious just like any other medical or surgical procedure, there are many misconceptions and myths surrounding this donor process. it's important that we educate the public about that. technology today allows us to do amazing things in the donation of organs and tissues. and new drugs have advanced the opportunity to ensure that these organs, these tissues are not rejected. my hope today as a member of the caucus is to encourage americans to get educated and understand the dire need for tissue donation, tissue and organ donations. this is an opportunity to save lives. sadly there are over 120,000 men and women and children who are on waiting lists for lifesaving organ donations around the country. for these patients, an organ donation simply is a matter of life and death. i'd like to commend the
organizations that raise awareness and that are on the frontlines about these important issues every single day throughout our country. i'd like to thank the national kidney foundation and the american liver foundation for their efforts to raise awareness, support patients, support funding for advancements in this field who always are trying to advance the opportunities for lifesaving organs that will make a difference in our communities throughout the nation. i want to thank the speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, i recently
introduced house concurrent resolution 129, along with my south florida colleague and friend, congressman ted deutsch, urging germany to honor its commitment and moral obligations to holocaust survivors by providing their unmet needs. there are an estimated half million survivors worldwide, about a quarter of whom live here in the united states. nearly 15,000 survivors call the great state of florida home, and i am proud to represent so many of them in my south florida district. but the sad reality is, and really humanity's great shame, that about half of all holocaust survivors live at or below the poverty line. tens of thousands of survivors, if not more, are suffering without basic life sustaining services and care that they need in their advanced years. many live alone or without family support, and lack the funds for home care, for
medicines, to hearing aids, food, to utilityities, to rent. what -- utilities, to rent. what a tragedy that so many holocaust survivors are unable to maintain even a modest and dignified standard of living. these individuals have suffered for nearly three quarters of a century from the physical and emotional scars that they have endured and carry with them to this very day. they have lived through the torture, the experiments, the labor camps, the loss of loved ones, and evener -- even the murder of their entire families. because of all of this holocaust survivors' needs are unique. they are more extensive, more complex than the needs of other elderly individuals. the time for justice, mr. speaker, is now. the time for action is now. because there may not be a next
year or even a next month for many of these holocaust survivors. that is why the german government must honor chancellor's pledge from 1951 that germany would take care of all of the needs of every survivor. and that is why this resolution is so important because time is of the essence. but it is not as though our friends in germany have done nothing to fulfill this pledge. the german government has over the years provided some support through income assistance programs and sought ways to improve and address the needs of the survivors. germany has even doubled its funding for home care services in the past five years. but that, unfortunately, does not match the reality of what is required. the german ministry of finance itself has admitted that the level of care financed by its government has been vastly
insufficient to date, especially for those who are in dire need of intensive long-term care. the real issue is of concern and that is that it's exacerbating the severe lack of funding, and one where i think we can press the german government and work with it to find a fair solution and that's the inconsistent manner in which existing funding and care is being distributed. the current system places an undue burden on the holocaust survivor and their families forcing them to jump through bureaucratic red tape, causing harmful delays and waste. this resolution is a simple one. it's straightforward. it's noncontroversial. and i urge my colleagues to support it. congress is in a unique position to work for and fight on behalf of holocaust survivors. many of whom are our constituents.
we have a long history of working on behalf of holocaust survivors and seeking out their long overdue justice. yom dnesday, may 4, is had a showa, holocaust remembrance day. as we remember and honor the victims and survivors of the holocaust, we are all compelled to do everything in our power to help those who have lived through those uninitialable -- unconscionable atrocities. these survivors, mr. speaker, have seen the worst that humanity has to offer. let us show them now the best of humanity by ensuring that they can, indeed, live out their days in dignity. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, for five minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr.
speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2901, the flood insurance market parity and modernization act. i'm a proud co-sponsor of this bipartisan bill which represents a positive step towards much needed flood insurance reform. this legislation provides clarity to states and private insurers and doing so it clears the way for competitive firms to play a much greater role in the flood insurance market. for my constituents back home, the 705,000 western pennsylvanians who sent me to washington to look out for their interests, this means more choices, more competitive rates, and more innovation. passing this legislation will be a win for western pennsylvanians eager for change. although some tend to think of flood insurance as a concern for coastal states like florida, louisiana, and texas, many pennsylvanians are closely monitoring the ongoing debate about the future of flood insurance. many of my constituents live alongside rivers and streams
and valleys with a history of flooding. my district is also home to many older cities and downs like johnstown that are filled with properties that predate the national flood insurance program. people have lived in these places for generations and have a deep sense of community. rightly, my constituents who live in these flood prone areas worry about future eligibility of affordable flood insurance option the in the marketplace. they want to remain in their homes where their family has lived and worked and built lasting connection was their neighbors. my constituents need access to affordable flood insurance and as this debate continues over the next year, i will make sure their concerns are addressed. h.r. 2901 is a strong step in the right direction as we seek to reform federal flood insurance policy. i hope that h.r. 2901 will receive the same broad bipartisan support it received in the financial services committee when it comes up for a vote later today. i look forward to working with my colleagues at the committee and on both sides of the aisle
as work continues on fluid insurance reform. mr. speaker, i also rise today to honor and thank norman kyle and alec who passed away at the age of 95 this past sunday for his brave service to our nation. norman served as a u.s. army infantryman during world war ii. after being captured by the nazis was a p.o.w. for over 700 days. he was born on august 24, 1920, and retired from steel corps where he worked for more than 40 years. he collected more than 100 trains. in addition to his parents, norman and sadie kyle, he was preceded in death by his wife, ruth. two sons, robert and kenneth, and grandson, john jr. norman is survived by his three daughters, nine grandchildren, 16 great grandchildren, and
five great great grandchildren. it was men like norman kyle who made their generation great and who are a big part of making this country the leader of the world. his life, legacy, and service will not be forgotten. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: mr. speaker, i'd like to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. speier: mr. speaker, all across the country today teachers, librarians, and parents will be reading the book "i am jazz" a children's book about transgender youth, co-written by jazz jennings, pictured here. and jessica. last year legal threats from the anti-lgbt q hate group forced the school in wisconsin to cancel plans to read this book to support a transgender
student. the local community rallied holding a reading at the library that drew more than 600 attendees in support of the student. now this is a movement. with readings across the country to increase understanding and to show young people that they are welcomed and loved. i'm proud to join these readers today from the house floor. and now i'm going to read this book, "i am jazz." i am jazz. for as long as i can remember, my favorite color has been pink. my second favorite color is silver, and my third favorite color is green. here are some of my other favorite things. dancing, singing, back flips, soccer, swimming, makeup, and pretending i'm a pop star. most of all, i love mermaids.
sometimes i even wear a mermaid tail into the pool. my best friends are samantha and casey. we always have fun together. we like high heels and princess gowns or cartwheels and trampolines. but i'm not exactly like samantha and casey. i have a girl's brain but a boy body. this is called transgender. i was born this way. when i was very little and my mom would say, you're such a good boy, i would say, no, momma. good girl. at first my family was confused. they always thought of me as a boy. as i got a little older, i hardly ever played with trucks or tools or super hero, only princesses and mermaid costumes. my brothers told me that that was girl stuff. i kept right on playing. my sister says i was always
talking to her about my girl thoughts and my girl dreams and how one day i would be a beautiful lady. she would giggle and say, you're a funny kid. sometimes my parents let me wear my sister's dresses around the house, but whenever we went out, i had to put on my boy clothes again, that made me mad. . pretending i was a boy felt like telling a lie. then, one amazing day everything changed. mom and dad took me to meet a new doctor who asked me lots and lots of questions. afterwards, the doctor spoke to my parents and i heard the word transgender for the very first time. that night at bedtime, my parents both hugged me and said, we understand now. be who you are. we love you no matter what. that made me smile and smile and smile.
mom and dad told me i could start wearing girl clothes to school and growing my hair long. they even let me change my name to jazz. being jazz felt more -- much more like being me. mom said being jazz would make me different than the other kids in school but that being different is ok. what's important, she said, is i'm happy with who i am. being jazz caused some other people to be confused too like the teachers at school. at the beginning of school, hey wanted me to use the boy's bathroom and play in the boys' gym class but that didn't make me feel normal at all. i was so happy when the teachers changed their minds. i can't imagine not playing on the same team as casey and samantha. even today there are kids who tease me or call me by a boy's name or ignore me altogether. this makes me feel crummy. then i remember that the kids who get to know me usually want to be my friend. they say i am one of the nicest
girls in school. i don't mind being different. different is special. i think what matters most is what a person is like inside. and inside i am happy. i'm having fun. i'm proud. i am jazz. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm really excited to be on the floor this morning to talk about digital manufacturing and how that impacts the things that we
make. now, this is a quantum leap in manufacturing, allowing objects to be rapidly printed. in the case of cybermanufacturing, printed remotely. since 2009, i've had proudly represented pennsylvania's fifth congressional district which is the largest geographically in the commonwealth and home to penn state main college in state college, pennsylvania, as well as to the barron campus in dubois county and another compu. over the time in congress i had the opportunity to see firsthand how the university is leading in the field of digital manufacturing and areas that range from 3-d bioprinting to cybermanufacturing, robotics and automation. portions of the fifth congressional district have a long history in the powder metal industry. in fact, st. mary's in elk county as well as in cameron
county, aned a joining county, have been known for years as the powder metal capital of the world. a few years ago i visited penn state to look at additive metal manufacturing which takes place in the university's applied research laboratory 3-d lab. it was amazing to watch metal objects to be made by a 3-d printer. it will revolutionize careers in the powder metal region which has meant so much to our region. in the same vain i've been so impressed with the university's efforts in hosting an additive manufacturing challenge for small businesses. the challenge will award five companies $40,000 to work with aculty and staff at penn state cimp 3-d on projects to demonstrate this amazing technology. beyond the dividends, mr.
speaker, that these new innovations are paying for the industries that drive america's economy, this research is also benefiting our national events. penn state is currently working with the united states naval air systems command to 3-d print, qualify and certify a critical safety item. in other words, an important part of the department of defense vehicle in titanium. this part will be flown in an aircraft next month and will be the first 3-d printed part to have gone through the entire process to become flight certified and tested in the military. i commend the pioneers of this exciting new technology from universities such as my alma mater, penn state, but also universities georgia tech and virginia tech, along with companies such as the aircraft engine manufacture prat and whitney, and helping students prepare for what are certainly -- pratt and whitney, and helping students prepare for what are certainly careers of the future. as co-chairman of the career
and technical education caucus, i spend a lot of time, mr. speaker, visiting schools, visiting our high schools, secondary schools, postsecondary schools that are providing training to greater opportunity and it's exciting to go into specifically high schools and see where this digital manufacturing, this additive manufacturing, using the 3-d printers and various types of materials is now present in our high school. and i appreciate the partnership that penn state has had working with not just business and industry but the collaborative work with our high schools to begin to introduce and grow this new innovation in manufacturing and to introduce this to young lerners, many of whom are going -- learners many of whom will be exposed to the very newest form of innovation for manufacturing. and some will go on to work for
businesses and industries, who knows. some will become entrepreneurs and take us to a return to a day of cottage industries. you know, some of our most amazing discoveries have happened in basements and garages and spare bedrooms where entrepreneurs have developed and invented and with the use of digital manufacturing, a return to cottage industries is quite frankly something that i think is going to happen in an overwhelming way as entrepreneurs take that innovation and be able to do some very specific product development and manufacturing, targeting maybe some specific niche markets. so very excited what technology -- how technology as it relates to career and technical education and technology as it relates to digital manufacturing or additive manufacturing is going to have a very positive impact on our citizens, our families, our businesses and quite frankly the competitiveness of our
nation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there is a common refrain that you and i and many others are quite familiar with. it is but for the grace of god there go i. this refrain has significant meaning to all of us. i have used this refrain myself . i use it when it came to the east coast and sandy, the hurricane. i used it when it came to flint and lead in the water. i used it when we had the hurricane to visit new orleans. we're talking about katrina. and i'm using it as it relates for puerto rico. but for the grace of god there
go i. it takes on a greater meaning when you become the subject of the refrain. mr. speaker, i rise now because in houston, texas, over the last two years we have had significant flooding. over the last two years in houston, texas, we had the memorial day flood. that flood created about $3 billion worth of damages. this year we've had the tax day flood which created about $8 billion total with the memorial day flood in damages. tax day flood was $5 billion. we've had lives lost in houston, texas. four lives estimated for the memorial day flood. eight lives for the tax day flood. lives have been lost. but for the grace of god there go i, and i have a greater understanding of what it means because of the way this has impacted the people in my city,
in my state. so mr. speaker, there are citizens of this country and i come to the floor today with a cry, an appeal that we do something about these circumstances because this will not be the last flooding that will take place in houston, texas, and there is a possible solution to some of the problems. i don't know that we can ever eliminate all of the flooding problems in houston, texas, but i do know that the corps of engineers have projects already on their docket, on their agenda, and if these are properly addressed we can mitigate a good deal of this flooding. that project that the corps has, these projects would cost us about $311 million to complete. one such project is a braze project. we authorized this in 1990, and we're projected to finish it in 2021. mr. speaker, it didn't take that long to create the erie
canal. it took us four years to complete the golden gate bridge. hoover dam was five years. the erie canal was eight years, and it only took us about eight years, maybe 10 by some estimates to put a person on the moon. surely we could have completed these projects sooner. this bill, h.r. 5025, will accord us $311 million to finish these projects so we can save lives, so that we can save money and the bill, if properly implemented with the creation of these projects and the completion of them, will also create jobs. more than 6,000 jobs are estimated to be created. so i come before my colleagues today asking that you kindly sign onto h.r. 5025, an opportunity for us to do something to help somebody. to help those that are in harm's way and will continue to be in harm's way as long as they live in houston, texas, one of the great american cities. but i do believe that we can do this, and while it may not be enough to eliminate all
flooding, i live by the basic premise that when there are times in your life when you cannot do enough, when no matter how much you do you will not do enough, i live by the premise that you do all that you can. we can do more. we can do something to prevent a good deal of this flooding, save some lives and create some jobs. and finally this. i would remind my colleagues that dr. king was imminently correct when he called to our attention that the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy, challenge and controversy. when you got cities with lead in the water, when you got bankruptcy confronting one of our -- one of our country's that are within our sphere, when you've got a city that is
flooding continuously, where do you stand? this is an opportunity for us to show that we stand with people who are in need of help. i thank you and i yield back my time. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.
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? >> 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? mr. perry: 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?
can you tell me who has custody of the young man charged with killing the people at mother emanuel? governor haley: is he in south carolina. mr. thompson: is he in a federal facility or state or county facility? governor haley: i believe he's in a state facility. mr. thompson: is he where? governor haley: he's in charleston? mr. thompson: the fello that did that heinous -- the fellow that did that heinous crime is in charleston? governor haley: yes. mr. thompson: has it posed any security issues, to your knowledge, to the people of charleston? governor haley: we won't let it pose any security issues. right now what i can tell you is the constant reminder. it's a constant reminder what happened, what we have to deal with, as we have to know that he's there. no one wants him there. and right now they're in the process of going forward with the death penalty. mr. thompson: and there's no
issue on my part to pursue the death penalty at all. but the fact is sometimes we to do fficult jobs including dealing with bad people. as governor you and local officials dealing with this bad person and whatever's required to make sure that that bad person is kept in a facility where he can't harm anyone, to the extent that he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your oath of office and other things would allow you to extend whatever resources to guarantee the safety of the people in south carolina. and that's the point i'm trying to get at. governor haley: yes, sir. i appreciate your point, mr. thompson. our goal is that we will deal with him as we need to deal with him. that was a homegrown issue that we will, you know, absolutely deal with. we just don't want a.d. moore coming to charleston.
dealing with one has shaken the state enough. i can't imagine what we would have to do if we had to deal with 80 of them. mr. thompson: thank you. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. governor haley, i apologize. the ranking member had to bring a discussion about a deranged murderer into a discussion about guantanamo bay terroristes that are backed by global organizations known as al qaeda, isis, isil, whatever you want to term, boko haram, and the list goes on and on. there are global terrorist organizations that have a completely different mindset than individuals that are deranged and commit heinous crimes in this country. for the record, mr. chairman, the governor sent a letter to secretary of defense ash carter along with governor brownback on august 25 and there was an executive order, july, 2015, by governor haley after the
chattanooga terrorist attack. i would like to submit that for the record. mr. perry: without objection, so ordered. mr. duncan: there is a school, elementary school or middle school, near the naval big, is that correct? governor haley: yes. i talked to someone yesterday and said good luck tomorrow. he said everybody in my area is terrified what could happen. mr. duncan: we're talking about south carolinian mothers and fathers considering sending their children to a school in close proximity to some of the most wanted and dangerous terrorists in the world so thanks for pointing that out. the letter that you and governor brownback sent to ash carter, did y'all get a response on that? governor haley: i'm not aware that we got a response. i will follow up and just confirm that but i am not aware of a response. they've been very -- they handled this very much on their own and have not included us in the process. i have had conversations of
governor brownback and i have made it very clear and i want any be made very clear, governor that has to deal with this, i will fight for them to make sure it doesn't happen in their state. this is not just about south carolina. this is about every state in the country. mr. duncan: it sound like like they're having any dialogue with governors across the country their states are considered for the guantanamo bay terrorists? governor haley: no, sir. what we know is that already we have had to sit there and wonder what's going to happen. again, the fear that is put in every state up for who we any is up for consideration, the fear that every state has is, what's going to happen? when's it going to happen? what's the turn-around time? we don't have any answers for them. mr. duncan: wow. the administration talks about stakeholder involvement, public involvement. they denied the shores off of south carolina, georgia, north
carolina and virginia in the next five-year drilling plan for energy development so that our states can play a part in the energy renaissance and energy security and they touted the fact that they talked to stakeholders. when 78% of south carolinians that were polled wanted to see our areas opened up to stakeholders they talked to were a small group of environmentalists. here we have the administration wanting to fulfill a campaign promise and want to bring terrorists. these are not criminals. they are terroristed backed by the organizations i mentioned earlier, two states in violation of the ndaa which is goes back nda that several congresses. bring these terrorists to south carolina, kansas or maybe another state without any correspondence with the governor? the governor represents 4. million people in south carolina. the general assembly, 124 in the house, 46 in the house represent a combined total of 4.8 million people in south
carolina. the congressional delegation, seven of us, represent 4.8 million people in south carolina who overwhelmingly support your decision to stop or try to stop the administration bringing terrorists to charleston, south carolina. so we listen to a small group of environmentalists about energy issues but he won't listen to the governor, the general assembly and the congressional delegation with regard to bringing terrorists to u.s. soil? that is alarming to me. so let me ask you this. has there been any sort of threat assessment with regard to the naval big, transferring the -- brig transferring the terrorists? i believe a terrorist on an island isolated from the main land, very difficult to get to, difficult for the terrorist organizationes that are supporting these terrorists to free them, attack the island or what not, they're guarded by united states marines, by the way, has there been a threat assessment about that brig in
charleston, south carolina, about how that is a possible target and how that would be handled if you are aware of? governor haley: again, we have not been given any information by the department of defense. i look at this very much like i look at my correctional facilities. you never know what's going to happen. so if one has a medical emergency, you all of a sudden have to figure out, ok, where are they going to go? which hospital is going to be there? how will we secure them from one point to another? how do we have to handle during the point in the process? if there is a breakout or if they shut down the prisons or if they take over the prisons, which that can happen, those are all things we have to deal with now. but we're dealing with those in south carolina. never have we thought about or can we comprehend dealing with that with terrorists that have done the crimes that they've done. mr. duncan: well, thank you for your valuable leadership on this. i'd be interested to see what other congressmen would say and what their governors would say if their state was targeted for these terrorists. thank you for your leadership and for being here today. mr. chairman, i yield back.
mr. perry: the chair -- governor haley: i would dare to say any governor, republican or democrat, would not want these detainees in their state. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman from south carolina. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. mr. richmond: let me start off by saying, i know that mr. duncan apologized on behalf of the ranking member. i don't think the ranking member needs anybody to apologize for him but if you want to apologize that's fine. i'm sure he can speak for himself. the issue of bringing up mother emanuel and the fact that a terrorist is a terrorist is an issue that we've been raising on this side for a very long time. it doesn't matter the nationality of the perpetrator, doesn't matter their motivation. terrorism is terrorism no matter the perpetrator or the victim. so when we look at those nine people that were killed, we
call it domestic terrorism. and the fact that you can hold the domestic terrorist means you have the ability to safely how a very dangerous -- house a very dangerous person who others would want to do harm to. you would agree you at least have the ability to do it? governor haley: i will never question our military and our officers. we are totally capable, and i don't doubt them for a second that they are not able to do their job and able to do their job well. i am talking about the environment. you bring upon a state when you create that kind of fear. you send a chill factor into a state that you can't put a cost on, that you can't put a reason on, that you can't give an speculation for. i know we have the best military in the world. my military will do whatever they have to do to protect the people of south carolina. my officers will do whatever they have to to protect the people of south carolina. that's not the issue. that will never be the issue.
the issue is, why would you want to bring these detainees that have done these types of terrorist acts onto american soil when you don't have to? you don't have to. i am an elected official. i had campaign promises. i know what that's about. you want to fulfill everyone. it's in your heart and soul that you want to fill it. i believe that president obama had his intentions back in 2009 when he was going against ms. clinton that he had a reason for saying that. these are different times. we are seeing different types of terrorism. we are seeing a different level of terrorism. it is time to rethink this and understand that those people that are doing those types of acts that we send to guantanamo, we're sending them there for a reason, we're keeping them there for a reason. mr. richmond: well, let me ask you a question. in 2002 suspect terrorist was transferred to a naval brig into north carolina, same
location being looked at today for some of the transfers. did his presence cause concern? did you even know he was there? i don't think you were governor then but, you know, did it create an uproar when we transferred him there? governor haley: i know that he was there but the concern has -- you're not talking about one, and not only that, this is a different day in time than it was back then. we've seen tremendous amounts of terrorist attacks. you're looking at a time where you want to bring a different level of terrorist to south carolina. so i don't think you can compare that one detainee that we happen to have at that time compared to the others. totally different. mr. richmond: just because of the raw -- because of the size of the number? governor haley: because if you go and you bring these detainees here, now the way the element comes to the area, it will encourage more people to want and go and be in south
carolina whether to protest, whether to join forces, whether to create homegrown terrorism, all of the things that governors are trying to protect them from as it is, you're creating a whole new magnet for that when you do something like that. that is the concern. we now -- i get flood reports. my state law enforcement division. the flood reports we get are now watching all of the homegrown terrorists that we think we may be getting there that are being trained -- getting that are being trained overseas. if you put these terrorists in south carolina it creates a magnet. the propaganda you claim is in guantanamo bay, you are going to move that propaganda to charleston, south carolina. mr. richmond: well, let me just say -- i'm from new orleans. tourist area, very similar to charleston. both founded because of the slave trade. i understand tourism being a base. i guess my ultimate question is, this is just a classic example of i guess all of the
american territories and states saying not in my back yard. let's leave them in cuba because we don't have a responsibility over there and we don't care about how, you know, ramifications over there. so if everybody says, not in my back yard, which is basically the argument that i hear, is we just don't want the chaos associated with housing these bad guys. governor haley: so that would imply all the governors are wrong? mr. richmond: i'm asking is that the argument, not in my back yard? governor haley: this is not me saying, oh, put it in south carolina or put it in kansas or put it in -- i don't want it going into any state in the country. this is not a not my back yard. this is the united states of america. this is an area we want to keep safe. and to bring terrorists from a place where they cannot harm anyone to an area that has populations within their states that they can harm and god forbid one error happened, one,
none of us wants that on us. none of us. we can't afford that. and for what? why are we having this conversation? what is the urgency to move these detainees? i have yet to hear what the logical reasoning is. the propaganda is not true because they hate us because the terrorists will always hate america. they hate our freedoms. they hate what we stand for. they hate that we're against terrorism. so for the tax money, d.c. has never been that stickler on cutting tax dollars. i think we could help you save some money so you can keep guantanamo bay open. when you talk about the other things that this will do, there are -- i just don't get it. and neither do any of the governors across this country understand what the urgency is to move terrorists that are in a place where we know they can't touch americans. why do we want to put them on american soil? because now we not only know if they come to american soil, what sort of rights are they
now going to have? we watched the supreme court totally start to go down that slippery slope. we dealt with the habeas corpus issues. we dealt with all this. what rights will we say they have because they are on u.s. soil? no one has yet been able to answer that question and everyone governor wants to know what rights these terrorists have. we deserve answers as governors. we deserve answers to what you are trying to do to our states and the fact that no one in the federal government will give us those answers is an unfair assumption and an unfair thought to not let the people of this country speak up because no one wants guantanamo bay in the united states. mr. richmond: mr. chairman, i see my time has expired. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. mr. carter: thanks, mr. chairman. governor, thank you for being here. let me begin by saying i associate myself with your earlier testimony about this being an ill-conceived plan.
i just think it's absolutely ludicrous to think that moving these prisoners to american soil could somehow improve our national security. i just don't get it. i don't understand it at all. and i can tell you, i think this is just, again, an ill-conceived plan to try to keep a campaign promise which makes it even worse. governor, my question is this. i have the honor and the privilege of representing coastal georgia, of savannah. you mentioned in your opening testimony that charleston was the second most favorable vacation spot behind savannah and georgia was the friendliest state. i wanted to make sure we got that clear. nevertheless, tourism is extremely important in charleston, extremely important in savannah. i know it's impossible to put
an economic cost, to put a number on that but can you imagine, can you just elaborate on the impact that might have on tourism? the driving force in our economy in savannah, in charleston and in new orleans. governor haley: well, send greetings to my sister state and the governor as well. i will tell you that the costs associated, who's going to take their family? who's going to take their kids? because if you go to where the naval brig is, that's where the tourist issues are. if you want to go down to the market, look at the houses, you just as a mom, you don't take your children anywhere near where you think there could be a threat. it's the perceived idea that they don't know. so number one, tourism and conventions and all of those things would stop going to that state and that's a big part of it. secondly, you would stop having the element of tv shows.
we now have "top chef" coming to south carolina. those questions are the things they ask because they don't want to be in a state that has any negativity to it. then you look at the fact even with the economic development projects that we have done in south carolina, i don't even know how i would begin to talk to a c.e.o. about something like that. i don't know how i could do that because what people don't realize, it's not just getting a plan and having them manufacture or do work. they want a place where they can bring host, their suppliers and their customers and their executives to that area. what are you going to do to charleston when do you that? mr. carter: sure. last time i checked it was my impression that the role of the federal government was to assist you and to help the local governments -- governor haley: protect the citizens. mr. carter: absolutely. on that point, let me say this. i always say the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect our people and our homeland. for the life of me i can't understand how this is going to
do anything except the exact opposite. but on the point of the federal government and their role, it seems to me like this is going to obviously -- i'm a former mayor and a former state legislator. it's obvious this is going to push more costs and more responsibility down to the states and down to the local communities. how are you going to deal with that? governor haley: it's one more thick we have to deal with. not only is it going to be security and it's going to be military, it's going to be planning of medical services, it's going to be planning for should something goes wrong, it has to planning for routes and things we have in place. governors have so much pressure now just in dealing with all the issues. whether it's tracking the terrorism in our state, whether it's tracking corrections and prisoners and making sure they stay in their place, this is a whole other level of threat. trying to track the cost of this, i don't know what it is but, again, even if it was zero, even if they agreed to pay us, cost is not an issue on
this. this goes far beyond it. mr. carter: absolutely. i could not agree more. to the point -- you brought it up a number of times during this testimony about protesters and about the propaganda portion of it. we are in nd today an immediate newscast. this is being tweeted right now, i can assure you. the propaganda is a concern. it's got to be a concern of all of us and certainly i know it's got to be a concern of you as a governor. governor haley: i don't agree with president obama about the propaganda of guantanamo. i think wherever you move the location you are creating that same propaganda. it doesn't change anything. mr. carter: not at all. again, let me thank you for addressing this and making the points succinctly that you have it doesn't matter what state this is, it doesn't matter what city this is, we don't need this on our homeland. the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect our homeland. not to bring these people over here. don't we understand it? that's what the people are
saying. no, we don't want them over here. governor haley: i will stand side by side with any governor that has to dweel with this. mr. carter: thank you, governor. thank you for your testimony. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor, for being here. just as a side note. all of my family is from wahalla, south carolina. governor haley: we will take very good care of them. mr. loudermilk: all right. could you answer, in your opinion, why are we currently keeping the detainees at guantanamo bay instead of originally just bringing them to the u.s.? governor haley: i mean, i think if you look at what the thought process was, anyone that was involved in a terrorist act or anyone that could possibly that was in -- that could possibly do something of a terrorist attack, we put them there for a reason and that is to keep the people of the united states safe. mr. loudermilk: because they are threats to the --
governor haley: because they are absolutely threats to the american people. mr. loudermilk: the idea was to keep them off u.s. soil. in the case of escape or any other action. in fact, speaking of escapes, they do happen. in 2010 we had 2,500 escapes in the united states. in 2011, 3,100. in 2012, 2,500. in 2014, over 2,000. so escape is something that we must be concerned about. governor haley: it's something that we deal with in south carolina and every governor deals with across the country. mr. loudermilk: mr. richmond brought up -- sorry, the ranking member brought up the case of the shooting in south carolina. that was an american citizen who was under your legal jurisdiction, correct? governor haley: that is correct. mr. loudermilk: so we would be adding more perpetrators into your state that aren't necessarily under your jurisdictional boundary? governor haley: that's exactly right. mr. loudermilk: increasing the threat -- of which we have threats in this nation.
there is another aspect of this is -- is south carolina or charleston ever susceptible to natural disasters? governor haley: yes, of course. mr. loudermilk: such as hurricanes? governor haley: yes. mr. loudermilk: has the administration talked about the evacuation plan or security risk should you have to evacuate a detention facility in the case of a hurricane? governor haley: we have to do that. if that happens we would certainly have to figure out how to do that. that creates not only more security but where do you go? what do you do with a terrorist like that? mr. loudermilk: and, of course, that would have an impact on you, not only -- not only the cost to the state but taking resources away that should be there helping citizens of south carolina to escape the disaster. governor haley: the problem is, what answer do i give to the people of south carolina? because those are the questions they're going to have. and no answer i can give them is ever going to be good enough. mr. loudermilk: there's one other area that brings a threat
governor haley: if we housed anything in a state, that's going to be more of a reason to want to go to that area to do something in that area to help get that person out or to make a statement. mr. loudermilk: do you know if any detainee has ever escaped from guantanamo? governor haley: not that i am'wear of. mr. loudermilk: do you know if any detainee or attempted terrorist attack against a u.s. military facility at guantanamo? governor haley: not that i'm aware of. mr. loudermilk: what would your assessment be if there was an escape, would that person be a direct threat to citizens of the united states other than the military? governor haley: it's the whole reason they are there so that they are not. to protect rights, freedoms, and lives of the united states citizens. mr. loudermilk: so guatemala is working. governor haley: it's been working. while we are having this conversation, just baffles me. mr. loudermilk: there are certain things this government and administration does that
baffles a whole lot of people in the united states, but being baffled and being threatened, your life, liberty, security, and your family is a totally different aspect. that's what i cannot understand why we want to change something that is working and put your state at risk. i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor. mr. mccaul: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. katko. mr. katko: thank you, great to have you here today. i'm from syracuse, new york. not new york city. upstate new york. i, too, have family in charleston. been there many times. governor haley: beautiful areas, visit often. mr. katko: i want to get a feel from you if i may to what degree has the administration consulted with you or worked with you while evaluating the suitability of charleston for a site for their -- possibly a
site for these detainees? in 2015 they did a survey, did he they work closely with you? governor haley: everything that they have done, they have done on their own. the only thing they did was call us and let us know they would be visiting charleston, which was the first we heard of to go look at the naval base. mr. katko: are you telling me here they made no effort to get -- input from you about this possible transfer of detainees? governor haley: no. what that's done to not only me but every other governor, it's left us without any information to share with our constituents or any way to defend ourselves against the possibility of these detainees coming to our state. mr. katko: they never spoke to you at all about the potential economic costs of bringing them to charleston? governor haley: they did not. mr. katko: they talk to you at all about the possible security concerns that may emanate from bringing these die tainees to charleston? governor haley: they did not. mr. katko: did they give you a heads up or input at all regarding the potential for charleston becoming a target if
these detainees were put there? governor haley: they have not given us any information to provide any comfort whatsoever. mr. katko: that seems outrageous given the fact there is a wealth of information about this. i'm on the homeland security committee as a whole. and i have done a lot of work with respect to isis. one thing's for sure is that like you said earlier there is a totally different threat dynamic now than there was 10 years ago in this country. isis and affiliated groups are radicalizing americans over the internet to do violence at home without ever leaving. when they can use something like this to foment that violence, they most likely will. i'm shocked they wouldn't even at least talk to you or share input with you about that. governor haley: we would welcome them talking to us because we would understand where we are in the situation and why they would consider the naval bringing or even if we are still -- brig or even if we are still up for consideration. gotten no input. mr. katko: switching gears, isn't it true this is a medium security facility the naval
brig? governor haley: yes. mr. katko: it's not even a max facility? governor haley: we would have to do some things to it. i guess maybe the department of defense has figured out how to do that. mr. katko: i was a federal prosecutor for 20 years, organized crime. prosecuting cartel as well as drug traffickers. i can tell you there's a slew of individuals that i prosecuted that are at maximum facilities for much less egregious times than what these individuals have committed against the united states. it's shocking to me that we have different grades in the federal system, medium, max, super max. to think about bringing perhaps the most dangerous individuals in the world to a medium security facility and then spend the extra money to upgrade that facility is perplexing at least. governor haley: i agree. mr. katko: now, have you ever considered -- consulted with anyone about possibly taking legal action to stop this from happening given the fact that it's illegal currently under
the law for the united states to expend any money to transfer individuals from guantanamo to the united states? governor haley: well, governor brownback and i both sent letters because at the time the word was that it was kansas and south carolina were the two states that were being strongly considered. we sent a letter to secretary carter to let him know that we absolutely didn't want to have this happen. but again we have not heard of anything. should we hear something, i will absolutely fight. i will absolutely sue. will i absolutely do whatever we need to do to pro-- i will absolutely do whatever we need to do to protect our state. republican or democrat, will i stand with any governor that has to go through this because i know the fear that it can put in the minds of the people of their state, but i also know the security concerns that governor would have. mr. katko: lastly, it's true is it not, that the vast majority, if not all, are most likely facing a military tribunal, if any at all? governor haley: i think so. mr. katko: isn't it true that
guantanamo is a military -- guantanamo bay is a military facility? governor haley: yes it is. if you find out and talk to the department of defense i would love to get an answer. >> would the gentleman yield? in response to the governor's question about a legal case. i filed a bill that gives the house of representatives standing in court if the president does violate the ndaa law and brings guantanamo bay terrorists to u.s. soil. he bill i filed, h.r. 661 -- 617 would give paul ryan and the house of representatives standing to stop this through legal means. mr. duncan: i ask the gentleman to sign on. thank you for your time. yield back. mr. mccaul: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair also thanks governor haley for her valuable tell and members for their questions. first panel, governor, you are excused. the clerk will prepare the witnesses table for the second panel. thank you.
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org]
the chair will now introduce our witnesses for the second panel. a little out of order for administrative purposes here. start with sheriff michael bouchard, is that correct? sheriff of oakland county, michigan, where he leads one of the nation's largest sheriff's offices overseeing 1,300 employees and managing an annual budget of over $140 million. sheriff bouchard is testifying on behalf of the major county sheriff's association. the association is a professional law enforcement association of elected sheriffs representing counties or parrishes with a population of 500,000 or more. s membership represents over 100 million americans. mr. ken gude is a senior kel at the center for american progress. he's served in numerous roles at the center since its founding in 2003. previously, mr. gude was a policy analyst at the center for national security studies.
at this point the chair yields to the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins, toint dues our second witness on this panel. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman, fore allowing me in great opportunity to introduce mr. thompson, the leeven worth county attorney in the sec congressional district of the great state of kansas. mr. thompson is a kansan in every sense of the word. he is a leavenworth native and his family dates back 150 years in leavenworth. he graduated from the university of kansas and went on to graduate from washburn university's school of law. both phenomenal universities in the second district. his knowledge of the impact that a detainee transfer may have on leavenworth and the entire region stems from his time as the top law enforcement official in leavenworth county. and it will provide much needed context and insight into this process. i thank him for taking his time to come to washington and sit before the subcommittee to
answer questions. i have full faith in his ability and he will help congress and the president better understand the implications and repercussions of such a transfer. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins. thank you-all for being here today. the chair recognizes sheriff bouchard for an opening statement. mr. bouchard: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member thompson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. i am as mentioned michael bouchard, sheriff of oakland county. been in law enforcement for almost 30 years and run one of the largest sheriff's offices in america. as vice president in charge of government affairs for major county sheriffs of america, i'm here to testify on their behalf. far too often local law enforcement's not consulted ahead of policy decisions that have direct consequence and implications for our communities. and despite years of conversation about closing
gtmo, transferring detainees at no single point has the administration requested our perspective on this topic. as actually elected officials, we are adamantly opposed to any effort to close gtmo and transfer detainees to u.s. soil. the nature of violence in america and around the world has evolved and the expansion of an encryption, social media for mass propaganda, inspiration for lone wolf attacks, and selective recruitment has exmow pow mentionly grown. securing the homeland cannot be an afterthought. law enforcement regularly and proactively plans and practices for the unthinkable. after the attacks in mumbai, i contacted all of the chiefs in my a.o.r. and called on us to train together on a regular basis for just such a scenario. a detaino housed in the backyard of an isis sympathizer would be n a powerful inspiration for a lone wolf attacker and the recruitment. we know isis has gone so far to
suggest targets, even in my county, where they publish a suggested kill list with home addresses. clearly a community that houses prisoners from gtmo could easily be added to such a list. prison radicalization and recrume is ongoing and big concern. the same contacts that supply the federal prisoners must be allied to gtmo detainees, no matter if they are housed in a military facility or not. going back as far as 2003, b.o.p. director harley testified before the senate that we know inmates are particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists. the september, 2015 former detainee summary report issued by the odni reported that 30% of former gtmo prisoners are confirmed or suspected of being back in terrorism. additionally, just a few months ago spanish and moroccan authorities arrested four suspected isis affiliates, including one described gtmo detainee. with high recidivism and proclivity for extreme violence, releasing or
transferring any additional detainees is simply counter intuitive. even in the increased threat environment law enforcement has continually been asked to do more with less. local law enforcement does not have the necessary funds and most recently the lifesaving equipment to properly address national security implications associated with transferring detainees to the u.s. grant programs work to address those gaps with local agency capabilities, however over the years we have seen a steady decline in those funding and most recently president obama's f.y. 2017 budget cut it by 45%. the military sur mrs. program and federal grant programs are great examples of federal partnership with local communities, however, through executive action not legislation this administration recalled 1033 military surplus equipment and placed burdensome rules on others. on the very same day sam
bernardino terror attacked our nation in one of the worst attacks since 9/11, my office received an order that return an armored personnel carrier to the federal government to be destroyed. the police in san bernardino called the terrorists, they came prepared today. on that day america became less prepared because of that executive order. gtmo houses detainees in u.s. facilities would present an extraordinary burden on the local community. sheriff mcmahon, a friend of mine in san bernardino, has already incurred a $350,000 overtime bill from that one event and a $19 million expenditure. when emergencies arise, federal officials and military are not the first responders. it's the locals. local must practice, prepare, train, and equip to deal with any situation and bringing people here will necessitate that expenditure. that means significant investment, planning, trainings, and equipment.
and all of these unreimbursed costs have been ignored in this so-called saving effort. protest against, around, or at those facilities outside of the wire would be a local responsibility and cost. as would an escape. we have always sought to be a positive source of ideas and collaboration and we applaud the committee's interest in hearing our thoughts. mr. chairman, i thank you for the time. i would be happy to answer questions. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes mr. gude for an opening statement. correction, no, we'll go ahead with that. mr. gude: thank you, mr. chairman. i understand that -- know that you are an iraq war veteran and general officer reserves. i want to thank you for your service. and mr. richmond and mr. duncan, i appreciate you being here for this hearing today. it's an incredibly important hearing we spend time talking about the facts associated with the implications of bringing guantanamo detainees into the
united states. first i want to say that i do agree with president obama that closing guantanamo would advance the national security interests of the united states. that is not just an opinion that president obama came up with his-n his campaign. it was a broadly shared view from senior government officials, national security officials of both parties in 2007, 2008, 2009. george w. bush in his memoir wrote about the necessity of closing guantanamo. then presidential candidate john mccain, his plan to close guantanamo would have moved all the detainees to fort leavenworth in 2009. a host of other very high ranking former officials agree with the necessity for closing guantanamo. colin powell reiterated just this year how necessary it was. so i want to go off script a bit as you, mr. chairman did, in your remarks and express my sincere disappointment that you would so casually impugn the
integrity of our military officers and men and women serving in the pentagon that they would be presenting their -- what is not their full judgment to this administration. that it is in the national security interest of the united states to close guantanamo. i think he owes an apology and don't think that you, when you were serving, would be clouding your judgment based on the political imperatives that you felt from your superiors. i feel like that that kind of a comment is indicative why it is so difficult for us to have a reasoned debate and reasoned analysis of this issue. it is a critical national security issue. now, looking at whether or not guantanamo detainees or international terrorists inside the united states prisons or inside secure military facilities would present a risk to the united states, we don't have to speculate. we have the wisdom of experience. i think it would surprise everyone here in this room, everyone watching on tv, everyone following this debate to learn that it was a republican president who first
brought guantanamo detainee in the united states. in 2002 transferred first to virginia and then to charleston, vet subject of the first panel. it is unclear to me why that was not the same kind of incredible security risk that governor haley and the members of this committee seem toined kate it was in the first panel when yasser hamdy was held in charleston for two years. not only was he held there but jose padilla. this is the man accused of trying to detonate a radiological dirty bomb in the united states, as well as omarry. three detainees held in charleston for almost the entirety of the bush administration. there was no uproar about it at the time. there were no protestations from governor sanford to the bush administration or to congress that those detainees represented the kind of security risk we heard this morning. the notion that in 2002 still in the shadow of the horrific attacks of 2001, that brought
down the world trade center, attacked the pentagon, we face somehow a lesser threat than we do now. i find very hard to believe. the notion -- and the detainees in charleston are not the only ones we have at least 11 states and the district of columbia since 9/11 have housed very high-ranking, senior, and extremely dangerous international terrorists at maximum security prisons, or secure principleon facilities. it was alluded to in the ranking member's opening statement that just 15 miles from here right now the accused ring leader of the benghazi attack is sitting in an alexandria prison and awaiting trial. he has been there two years. no froast, no political controversy surrounding that particular aspect of the attack, the notion of bringing guantanamo detainees into the united states in a very similar situation presents an unacceptable risk is hard for me to understand and fathom. i will just close with one last
comment about the implications for state and local officials. certainly there is emergency response planning that these officials have to deal with on a day-to-day basis for almost every eventuality. the notion that pentagon official, defense department officials, and city and state of south carolina have not prepared for the possibility that the charleston naval base will have to be evacuated because a hurricane strikes me as hard to believe simply because there could be guantanamo detainees there now, as there were guantanamo detainees there for a number years before, doesn't change the fact that they have already done these plans. with that i will conclude my opening statement and i look forward to your questions. thank you. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. and the chair now recognizes mr. thompson for his statement. mr. thompson: chairman perry, esteemed committee i would like to thank our veterans as well as those who have worked at guantanamo bay. also would like to thank our
lomplete officers and particularly representative jenkins for giving me this opportunity to speak today. today i speak on behalf of the leavenworth and i thank you for that opportunity. i speak to the president's desire to close guantanamo bay detention facility and the impact it would have on communities, particularly leavenworth. today i want to focus on issues of of of of concern. first, lack of communication by the department of defense and obama administration. second, i would like to talk about the security implications of kansas city metro area to the detainees if they were transferred there. and third, i would like to talk about the implications to the mission of fort levent worth. as -- leavenworth. as county attorney i am the chief law enforcement officer and tasked with prosecute ing criminal offenses and protecting the safety and welfare of the community. it's also important to me to have as much information as possible in making any decision regarding community safety. the department of defense has done a site survey for fort
leavenworth but it has failed to share nist information with any of the--to share any information with any local officials. without this information we can't prepared for the economic burden or potential threats it may receive from housing any detainees from guantanamo bay. the attacks of san bernardino, paris, and brussels demand communities remain on guard. if detainees are placed in leavenworth, it would make our community a high priority target. in 1997, a convicted perpetrator of the 1993 world trade center bombing was housed in a leavenworth penitentiary. the prison became a terrorist target and received letter bombs. our own law enforcement as well as national law enforcement had to expend significant resources to respond to this threat. to build a new facility in fort leavenworth it would cost $91 million. and take three years. that's comparison from the
previous facility that was built 10 years ago. one of the major issues that the department of defense special envoy for the closure of guantanamo bay said any facility for housing detainees would require adequate medical if a sifments fort leavenworth does not have these such facilities. the closest facilities are university of kansas medical certainty, which is roughly 45 minutes away. beyond the economic concerns, there would be significant safety concerns if a detainee needed to be transferred there for care. further, the current facilities have roadways less than a chip shot away from the border. there is a railroad that carries hazardous materials only a few hundred yards away. if that was found necessary to shut down, that would cost our community $1 million of revenue a day. there is an airport within the have a sinity of the facility shared by my community. that would be rendered useless if a no-fly zone required, such as the juan that guantanamo bay has now. the missouri river is adjacent
to fort leavenworth and allow accessibility to the fort. if deemed necessary to fortify the for the's -- forth's borders. land longing to the families that surround that area who owned it before it was a state would lose that land to eminent domain. leavenworth county is currently home to over 75,000 residents. because the fort leavenworth is there, the approximate 20,000 veterans residing in and around leavenworth community area and many of those have served in afghanistan and in iraq. some of them suffer from ptsd as well as serious injuries from their tours of service. gold star families live in that community have loved ones buried near yards away from where the disciplinary barracks is. beyond the economic concerns putting the detainees in fort leavenworth say to the veterans and those families, how would
this affect these people psychologically? finally, fort leaven worth has the command and general staff college, premiere college for the national and international officers. generals powell, president eisenhower were among the attendees. our officers as well as international officers bring their families to our community which is a significant economic benefit to the area. president obama wants guantanamo bay closed in part because of the impact of our relationships with our allies. the placement of detainees in fort leavenworth may cause these families or even the international officers themselves to not attend the college. the impact of losing the relationships with these international officers could have a long-term effect on our foreign relations. putting it frankly and from a friend of mine, placing the detainees in fort leavenworth would be similar to building a prison in harvard yard. mr. chairman, i look forward in answering questions from you and the committee. mr. perry: the chair thanks mr.
thompson. the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes of questioning. sheriff bouchard, can you just reiterate, i started writing it down. i missed the unreimbursed cost regarding san bernardino. i think you mentioned that. can you recount that figure for us and the committee. mr. bouchard: yes. he had told us it was $350,000 right off the bat in unreimbursed overtime and $19 million been expended by the locals on the totality of the situation. mr. perry: $350,000 overtime and $19 million in unexpected cost to the local government. as i recall, you said unreimbursed cost, right? the federal government hasn't come back in after the fact and taken care of that bill. it's the local community that bears the burden of the cost associated with the terrorist attack that some in the room have said all agencies are prepared to handle and deal with at any time. and we understand that law
enforcement does every single thing it can, but we understand we are all human and you can't -- they only have to be right one time, right? so everybody -- i guess what we are saying is every community has to be prepared for $350,000 in overtime minimum and potentially up to $19 million in costs due to some terrorist related attack. whether there is a prison housing detainees in your community or not. mr. bouchard: yes, sir. mr. perry: thank you. mr. gude, first of all i don't owe anybody an apology. i would ask you, have you ever taken the oath of office to where the nation -- to wear the nation's uniform? how would you have any idea of the requirements foisted upon individuals that take that oath and things that are said? i will tell you that i have taken the oath and every single officer that has taken the oath, every single officer, mr. gude, understands what i was saying and what i said was, ours is not to question why. we serve at the pleasure of the commander in chief.
period. period. we offer our opinions. however, once the commander in chief gives the order, our job is to salute, move out. if you knew that, if you ever took the oath, if you ever wore the uniform, if you ever served, you would know that. moving on. mr. gude, i think i answered your statement. like i said, moving on. how often have you read the national security strategy or the national military strategy? microphone, please. mr. gude: i frequently read the national security. mr. perry: frequently. what's frequently? mr. gude: many times, part of my job. mr. perry: part of your job. many times because it's an evolving document that changes administration by administration. do you update yourself? you know that the strategy isn't always updated to concur with current events. evolving event, right? mr. gude: i believe the national security strategy has been updated two times in this administration. mr. perry: you have read both. mr. gude: yes.
mr. perry: the national military strategy as well? mr. gude: the qddr? mr. perry: yes. mr. gude: yes. mr. perry: what] ground do you have, what professional background do you have other than working at this center for 13 years, what professional background, training, etc., do you have in law enforcement, in the military, in national strategy studies, what have you, what back ground do you have other than working at this location? mr. gude: i have been a professional on the national security space for more than 15 years. mr. perry: what does that mean? as a professional what does that mean? you work there, but what training do you have? mr. gude: i have been following these issues and i'm deeply involved in them. mr. perry: many americans have as well. but they don't come before congress and testify with their opinions based on they have been following these issues. many americans are very concerned. but i'm asking what -- do you have any law enforcement training? mr. gude: no. mr. perry: military? mr. gude: no. mr. perry: diplomatic training? mr. gude: i don't know what
that is. no. mr. perry: diplomatic core and they receive training. mr. gude: i have not served in the government. mr. perry: so elucidating your opinions on these subjects, but i will have -- i remind you, i'm looking at your own testimony here, that you say for these reasons, a long bipartisan list of senior government and national security figures do not believe gaupt gaunt -- guantanamo advances u.s. national security interest. i can tell you there's a whole lot of people that serve in this place that have worn the uniform who have training, whether law enforcement, whether national security, whether in the diplomatic corps, that disagreement with all due respect while i appreciate your opinion, and many of us dorks we asked you here for your alternative opinion. i'm not sure it's an informed opinion. it's opinion an opinion. we appreciate that. i spoke with some folks cently in a hearing of similar subject, special envoy
for guantanamo closure and the defense special envoy for guantanamo detention closure, both of those individuals cited numerous things like you do about it's a magnet for recruiting. and guantanamo is. national hurts our security, it costs us a lot of money to have it there, and i ask what empirical data do you have to support that? what empirical data do you have to support the claim that moving these individuals to south carolina, to kansas, or anywhere in continental united states, will make any difference? these individuals can provide me no empirical data or studies on cost or otherwise. can you provide any at this time? mr. gude: there was one of the most famous cases in -- during the bush administration, there was an interrogator, military interrogator from iraq who reported that at the time the
number one recruitment tool that al qaeda in iraq was using to draw individuals into their ranks was the existence of guantanamo bay. it was clear and it was persuasive and it persuaded not people just like me but people like colin powell, jim baker, people like the president of the united states, george w. bush, john mccain. you can impugn my credentials all you want. i think you'll have a heard time impugning theirs. mr. perry: i'm in the business questioning everything including my party because it is national security. national security, sir, comes before everything. with all due respect i'm not necessarily interested so much in the opinions of a terrorist. not only a terrorist but only one terrorist. and owe by the way, i don't understand and nor have you told me how it makes a difference whether it's in guantanamo or south carolina. what is -- can you tell me that? mr. gude: guantanamo is a symbol of torture and abuse that occurred during the bush administration at that prison
and other prisons. it is not simply -- propaganda against guantanamo is not simply associated with the fact that there are military detainees there. there is nothing wrong with that. there was no propaganda associated with the charleston naval break. mr. perry: when we move all these prisoners to south carolina and then the propaganda moved to south carolina, i guess that would then justify and validate the governor's concern? mr. gude: i don't know there's any evidence the propaganda -- mr. perry: do you have evidence to the contrary? mr. gude: yes. there was no propaganda associate with the -- mr. perry: were all the detainees in south carolina i'm talking about all of them. all in one location. all the focus of international terrorism and islamists such as they are in guantanamo. mr. gude: i understand it's your opinion that that would follow. but -- mr. perry: i'm asking if you have any evidence. mr. gude: i have no -- there is no evidence. no evidence. mr. perry: at this point i yield to the gentleman, mr. richmond.
mr. richmond: based on history, because you can only use history to predict the future, based on history when south held na contained and three, was any propaganda targeted at south carolina? mr. gude: no. mr. richmond: thank you. sheriff, you mentioned in your testimony, and i'm just trying to relate all this together, that the lack of military equipment, the 1033 program causes some concern for housing detainees? mr. bouchard: it causes concern relative to the preparedness level and understanding of the threat and the situations we deal with on a daily basis. that causes us great concern because we believe a lot of the desessions made by the administration -- decisions made by the administration is focused on perception not reality. mr. richmond: you think it was perception that some of our police forces were being
militarized and that they were using armored vehicles running through urban neighborhoods? mr. bouchard: i'm saying that the perception that's been fostered that an armored vehicle makes us militarized, in essence, is wrong. that an armored vehicle that pulls up at bank or grocery store every day to protect money, when that bank or grocery store is being held up, and a police vehicle shows up with the same armored vehicle, somehow it's scary or militarized it's false. it's there for the same reason. to protect people. mr. richmond: i understand. where tanks going through urban neighborhoods. mr. bouchard: we have no tanks, sir. there are not tanks in police inventory in america. only armored vehicles with no -- that's one of the false perceptions. there is no tank in police custody in america. armored personnel carriers. big, safe boxes without weapons, sir. mr. richmond: we are going to agree to disagree on that. as my sheriffs and police advocate for things, i think that one of the things,
especially in a petrochemical industry, that's one of the things that my sheriffs ask for. i'm trying to figure out how we made that connection. you also say there is a high recidivism rate with guantanamo prisoners. what is the recidivism rate? who was released and how often do they recommit a crime? mr. bouchard: there's been a number of studies. the most recent one, there was a 30% recidivism of guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield. >> can i jump in on that one? mr. richmond: what's the recidivism rate at the largest prison in -- under your jurisdiction? mr. bouchard: defends on the crime. mr. richmond: no, no, no. wait, wait. let me ask a question. because i was just a state rep. i was on the judiciary committee. and everybody knows the general recidivism rate of their prisons. so what is your general
recidivism rate? mr. bouchard: first of all, sheriffs don't run the state prisons. i can't quote it. mr. richmond: wouldn't you run a local one? mr. bouchard: a jail. it depends on the crime. but typically it runs from 30%, to 60%, 70%, depending on the crime. mr. richmond: mr. gude? mr. gude: yes, these figures must be properly assessed by breaking them down between the detainees that were released from guantanamo during the bush administration and the detainees released from guantanamo under the obama administration. the reason why that is because the obama administration implemented a substantial process for determining whether or not it was appropriate to release the detainees. now any individual detainee. now in order to be released it needs the unanimous decision of six senior national security officials, and then it would also further require the secretary of defense to certify that an individual -- security
arrangements associated with the individual's transfer help keep americans safe. what we have learned is that this process has worked. 94% of the detainees who have been either confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight were released during the bush administration. a tiny number of the detainees that have been accused of -- or confirmed to rejoin the fight were released under the obama administration. mr. richmond: mr. thompson, let me -- this is very difficult subject. and i understand being elected official and i think all of the witnesses on the republican side are elected. with elected comes a different responsibility. let me ask you a question, would you just be in favor of closing the bureau of prisons facility at leavenworth now? mr. thompson: no. i would not be in favor.
that has undue revenue for our economy. but i can say in talking to officials and retired officials from fort leavenworth, the detainees coming from guantanamo bay would cause a very serious concern. those are much different than detainees we already house at fort leavenworth. mr. richmond: it's more -- middle or minimum security? mr. thompson: correct. you're ok d: so, with the economic development and the jobs that are created by housing minimum but you just don't want to go to maximum or a few detainees or several detainees from guantanamo? mr. thompson: we know -- we are known for prisons. we are known for being able to hold and house prisoners. but these prisoners are much different than any of the others that we have seen or have seen. 80 of the worst that we know of.
there is a specific reason why they are at guantanamo bay. and we would not want them at fort leavenworth or leavenworth for the effects it would have on our community and our citizens. not even the economic concern -- including the economic concerns, but primarily the psychlogical concerns it would have to all of our veterans, gold star family members, and anyone else out there. if i could also address mr. gude who is talking about the symbolism of guantanamo bay and the reason for its closure. that symbolism was something that president obama has used for the example why it should be closed. but that is not going to dissipate with it being closed. that is going to stay with it. we don't forget about 9/11 even though the structures are now built over where they have fallen. we are going to continue to have to have that burden. we are going to have to worry about that threat. i would also reiterate that mr. gude's only statements, or written statements in january, 2016, said that symbolism is fading.
mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes mr. duncan from south carolina. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gude, what year was the 9/11 attacks on new york? mr. gude: that was 2001. mr. duncan: you were talking about charleston navy brig holding detainees, terrorists, what year was that? mr. gude: 2002 through 2009. mr. duncan: thank you. what year was the department of homeland security stood up? mr. gude: 2002. mr. duncan: what year was this committee formed? mr. gude: 2004. mr. duncan: what i'm showing is this has been a fluid process. we were attacked. we had to begin prosecuting a war against those that attacked us. when we captured enemy gattants on the battlefield we had to figure out what to do with 24e78, correct? mr. gude: yes. mr. duncan: the homeland had to figure out how we are going to respond to terrorism attacks on our soil. combined 22 agencies. we created a brand new
committee within the halls of congress to continually talk about security of the homeland. hence we have this hearing talking about security of the homeland. for your information, the recidivism rate or the number of detainees that return to the battlefield is about 30%. it doesn't matter whether they were released by the bush administration or the obama administration. how many terrorists shot up the chattanooga recruitment station? mr. gude: i believe it was one. mr. duncan: one. it only takes one to kill a large number of americans somewhere in the world. whether that's u.s. soil or somewhere else. whether they are released by bush or released by obama, it only takes one to commit heinous acts of terror against americans. so we know that the d.o.d. study said about 30% of those released, regardless of who released them, have returned to the battlefield.
i would argue that american lives have been lost because of them returning to the battlefield. your argument that bush released more, and more return to the battlefield doesn't hold water because it only takes one of the terrorists to do that. mr. thompson. you heard governor haley talk about d.o.d. doing a site assessment at charleston naval brig. we know in august they did a site assessment there at fort leavenworth. what kind of communication have they had with you? mr. thompson: representative duncan, they had no conversation with myself. and they have had no or little conversation with any of our city, local, or law enforcement, or officials. everything -- mr. duncan: nor state officials based on the governor's testimony because she and governor brown aback sent a letter asking. mr. thompson: we have no idea. there is 80 detainees that potentially could be coming. we don't know who of those 80 are coming. there's 26 set for release but cannot be released because they don't have a home country. there's 44 that cannot be
released at all. then the 10 or seven being prosecuted and three have been convicted. are we getting the seven, three, the 44, the 26? we don't in a moment how can we even feasibly understand what type of threat any one of those people could bring to our community and what we would have to do to strengthen our border around fort leaven worth, increase our law enforcement cost, increase our safety. we have no idea because we are not being talked to. that's one of the things i would want and i would want for our community or any community that would look at having these detainees. mr. duncan: have any of you gentlemen visited the prison at guantanamo bay? mr. thompson: no. mr. gude: no. mr. bouchard: no. mr. duncan: mr. thompson, i have. you heard the chairman say he just recently did. i think you have been down there more than once. in 2001, 2002, when we started catching enemy combatants, they took them to guantanamo bay. you see pictures. "time" magazine loves to show a
picture of these outdoor facilities people cooking and detainees being in a fenced in area. but since 2002, we built some pretty substantial prisons -- facilities there. medium security, low security area. i don't think there's any prisoners in the low security area anymore. there's medium security and maximum security. medium security is probably like the prison in your county. community rooms. cell blocks off of those. they have the ability to cook their own food. do their own laundry. participate in crafts. they are still incarcerated but it's much like what you see in counties and state facilities. then there's a maximum security facility. these prisoners, these terrorists, held to the maximum security, has no contact with any other prisoner. he has his own room or cell. he's monitored 24/7, 365, by the security team that can
watch his every movement while he's in that cell. they are muslim. they have to have the ability to pray. there are combound areas outside their cell where they can go out, get fresh air. connected to their cell. not a community area for exercise. so they can go there. they don't have any contact with any other prisoners. there are some special circumstances holding muslim terrorists that want to harm america in a special prison facility has been built on guantanamo bay for that purpose. in addition, there's a courtroom facility built in guantanamo bay at taxpayer expense for trying convicted terrorists or captured terrorists, rather, at guantanamo bay. so they have access, secure access to council with their legal counsel. so they can't escape the courtroom. all this is in place.
if they came to the naval brig in charleston osh fort leavenworth, do i believe it will cost the taxpayer additional resources to create or recreate what we already have at guantanamo bay to house these very special prisoners. are you set up the same way guantanamo bay is based on my description of those cell blocks? mr. thompson: we are not set up for that. like i said, at this time we would have to build a new facility. that new facility would take at least three years. i'm using a comparison from what fort leavenworth told me it took to build their most recent facility. that was 10 years ago. that might be up to $120 million. mr. duncan: is d.o.d. coming up with these plans right now? they are not having conversations with you about your needs. are they doing this unilaterally, we are going to fort leavenworth, we are build agnew prison, this is what they look like. wouldn't they talk to you because you have to run the
place? mr. thompson: i have no clearance to be able to talk to the military officials on official duty. i have no idea what they are discussing. i can tell you that i have looked at the map of fort leavenworth and been told where the idea would be. there is a boy scout and girl scout camp in the certainty. there is no water, electricity area to connect that area. much less having to build it. there is not the facility or capabilities to be able to house them at this time. i'm also told that the combaunt gaunt bay detainees -- guantanamo bay detainees, especially if they are maximum, have to have almost specialized security for one in, one out watching over them. mr. duncan: if we have to build all these new facilities. why don't we go to louisiana and got into the high ground in the bayou and build a brand new facility? or fort a.p. hill right down the road here, thousands upon thousands of undeveloped acres and drop a prison facility there. why are we talking about fort leavenworth or charleston if we are talking about this?
it's interesting when you bring that closer to home, do i believe. mr. thompson: i would say that if they were -- guantanamo bay, they are away from harming any other citizens. that's one of the most serious concerns that we have about bringing them to the united states soil. and to bring them into a community such as governor haley's, charleston, or something like fort leavenworth where they are communities of veterans as well as just citizens like myself living there, that's going to cause them undue threat, concern, economic impact social impact, psych local impact. all these things.