tv Hearing on Guantanamo Bay Transfers to the U.S. CSPAN May 1, 2016 12:28pm-1:34pm EDT
years ago that showed there is actually more gun violence on pg-13 movies than r-rated movies. there is a couple reasons for that. networks and the studios make more money on pg-13's and they do on our. so they will find anyway to get the gun violence in there. there is aond is, desensitization of the ratings -- those who write the content themselves. pg-13 should really be called r 13, because it is really more pg.that it is 13 many f words can use in pg-13? the answer should be zero, but i
think it is actually 2-3. the ratings creep is something that is certainly happening in motion pictures and i think it is also happening on television. tim weathers is the presidents of the parent television council. thank you gentlemen. >> c-span. created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. wrote to the white house coverage coming up later today with vermont senator bernie
sanders. the democratic presidential candidate is holding a news conference here in washington dc where he first announced his candidacy exactly one year ago. we have it live at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> independent media is the oxygen of a democracy. it is essential. holding the eisenhower accountable. there to serve some kind of corporate agenda. when we cover war and peace, we are not brought to you by the weapons manufacture. >> tonight on q&a, journalist amy goodman. she talks about the book she has co-authored called democracy now. the idea of democracy now starting 20 years ago, a really has not changed. bringing out the voices of people at the grassroots in the
united states and around the world. and they very much represent i think, the majority of people. i think people who are concerned deeply about war and peace, about growing inequality in this change, about climate are not a fringe minority. not even a silent majority. majority,lenced silenced by the corporate media. eastern onat eight c-span's q&a. >> south carolina governor nikki haley was on capitol hill this past week testifying on the obama administrations plan for closing guantanamo bay, which can lead to some detainees being transferred to a military prison in charleston. governor haley spoke to lawmakers about how the proposal would negatively impact her home state. it was also another panel of witnesses from other states who
testified on the same issue. this is just under two hours. the treaty on homeland security subcommittee on oversight and management efficiency will come to order. is purpose of this hearing to receive testimony on state and local perspectives regarding the impact of transferring guantanamo bay detainees to the homeland. the chernow recognizes himself an opening statement. in january 2009, president obama 13492,executive order which ordered the closure of the detention facilities act guantanamo bay naval base in cuba. inr seven years later, february 2016, the administration submitted its plan to close the detention the plan isthough devoid of specifics, the administration has made clear
that it intends to identify a location within the united states to detain an unspecified number of guantanamo prisoners. last month, that the senior defense official tally the plan as representing the collective best judgment of the administration's top military and civilian leaders. it is a result of close collaboration across numerous federal agencies. i just must break from the scripting, and on that a little of, the collective judgment the measures his top military and civilian leaders, with all due respect, military leaders that serve in the ministration agree with the commander-in-chief. their credibility in this regard unfortunately has to be andtioned on this basis nothing else. of course the civilian leaders looking to curry favor with the administration are in the same position.
at these solid, unbiased backs. not the opinions or the collective best judgment. moving on. the recordto set straight. the administration has failed to seek the very necessary input from state and local law enforcement on its plan. the reason is simple. law enforcement professionals strongly oppose any plan that could endanger the citizens they are sworn to protect. last month, the major county sheriff's association which represents sheriff's offices for my nation's largest counties where the president to express your opposition japan. i ask about this letter be included in the record and without objection it is so ordered. why would the administration ignore the advice of our state and local law enforcement professionals?
just because there'd biased doesn't fit the administration's political narrative, does not mean their voice and not be heard. , state and local law enforcement have numerous concerns with the implications of bringing the world's most dangerous terrorists to our homeland. law enforcement officials of theous questions which administration's plan either failed to consider are simply did not answer. for example, what if the base required evacuation? what if detainees require transportation to medical facilities? and what additional resources are needed in such transfers? i will add, what about court facilities? have happened to visit guantanamo bay where taxpayers have paid dearly for very specific core facility. where is that going to happen? he was going be paying for that yet again? has arguedtration that taxpayers could save tens of millions of dollars by transferring these terrorist to the homeland. i would say which taxpayers?
us pay forll of guantanamo bay, but if you move them state-by-state, facility by facility, it will be the taxpayers in those local locations that will bear the entire burden. but that they calculate the cost to stay in the communities? local communities will face additional cost due to the heightened environment. become a would likely magnet for protest as well for the restraining the resources of the locals. we also have legal questions such as whether these terrorist could be eligible for certain forms of relief from removal, relay from immigration attention, our constitutional rights. the department of justice believes that existing statutory safeguards our existing and courts historically of role that detainees held under the cause of war were brought to the u.s. are outside the reach of immigration laws. make a mistake, their lawyers will test every avenue.
another major concern is that the facility would become a terrorist target itself. consider the propaganda value for isis if it successfully guantanamo bay terrace on american soil. anyone thinks that this is possible is suffering from a failure of imagination. guantanamo bay detainees clearly remain dangerous and want to kill americans. the facility also could become an attractive target for loan was. radical islamic extremists may be a inspired to perform a jihad in the homeland. a american people do not want guantanamo bay terrace detained in their communities, neighborhoods, or down the street from the children's school. fortunately, congress passed legislation that prohibits transferring one penama bay detainees to the homeland and the president signed it. however, it is still moving
with his legacy, the president that is in the ministration, is still moving forward with its legacy driven agenda which includes closing guantanamo bay. is very different from the national security agenda i think he should be focused on. despite the will of the american people he is moving forward with this agenda. states and localities must prepare for the possibility that this administration will seek to attain these terrorists in our humanity despite the will of the american people. finally, i think governor haley for appearing before the subcommittee today, leaving her great stay in coming to washington dc. as i stated earlier, receiving input from state and local communities regarding these transfers is critical. by governor haley made a check to washington today underscores that importance. thank you again for being here today governor, i look for to testimony. the chernow recognizes the
ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson for a statement. >> thank you chairman for holding today's hearing. mr. chairman i would like to request unanimous consent to induce statements into the record. and the executive director of american correctional association. >> without objection. >> thank you and welcome governor to the subcommittee. hearing. following the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001, the united states faced a question of what to do with so-called unlawful combatants captured in military operations or other counterterrorism operations. the answer at the time that military leaders seized upon what the u.s. military prison located within the guantanamo
bay naval base in cuba. the first 20 detainees arrived in guantanamo bay prison on january 11, 2002. since that time, guantanamo bay has served as a prison camp to detain dangerous individuals to interrogate those individuals, unsuspected acts of terrorism, and to prosecute those individuals for war crimes. peak, there were nearly 800 individuals held a guantanamo bay. during the bush administration, more than 500 were released to their home countries, transferred to a third country. this month, the department of defense announced that they would transfer nine detainees to saudi arabia. the total number of individuals currently act guantanamo bay is 80. i want to make it clear that guantanamo bay has served its purpose and must be close.
closing the guantanamo bay detention facility is a national security imperative. continued operation weakens our national security by furthering the recruitment propaganda of violent extremists. in 2009, president obama signed an executive order expressing these concerns and ordering the closing of the facility. closure, it may be necessary for those detainees and cannot be transferred to a third-party country to be imprisoned in the united states and facilities deemed to be able to do so. today i expect to hear concerns of the national security implications for transferring suspected terrorist united states. some of the witnesses may even say that bringing detainees to
united states brings terrorism to our own backyard. based on years of research and analysis, by the department of and hometate, insecurity, these concerns simply are not supported. there is no evidence that suggests housing guantanamo bay detainees will bring additional attacks, attention, or danger to the united states. in fact, america has a long track record of incarcerating endangered terrace. some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world that we've known are incarcerated at us-mexico security prisons such as the super max facility in colorado. in fact, the man who tried to bring the world trade center down and his co-conspirators have been serving multiple life sentences in super max since 1997. no one, terrorist or criminal, has ever escaped from that
prison. in fiscal year 2015, the cost of operating guantanamo bay was approximately 400 and $45 million -- $445 million. in addition, mating -- maintaining the facility in the future would require an additional $200 million. the plan president obama delivered to congress represents the best and most secure way to close the prison at guantanamo bay. today i encourage everyone to focus on the facts. s fear. baseles i look for to your testimony and the testimony of all the witnesses.
mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair thanks a gentleman. reminded thatare opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have two panels of distinguished witnesses before us today. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. duncan to introduce the first witness. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks for holding this incredibly important hearing today. it is a great day in washington just like it is a great day because i'mna honored and proud to use my good friend governor nikki haley. first elected governor in 2010 as a 116th governor of the great state of south carolina. she is the first female and first minority governor in state history and is currently the youngest governor serving in the nation. governor, weing served together in a soft alanna -- south carolina general assembly for years. a greatbeen a
leader. i appreciate her hard work as governor and leadership in bringing our state through difficult times especially the last 12 months. alumni from my almond water matter clemson university. we are both a very proud of that. she has been a vocal opponent from the very beginning of the president's plan to move the guantanamo bay terrace to the united states. specifically to the naval consolidated brig and thousands of carolina. i'm excited to have her testify before a subcommittee and providing a governor's perspective on this important issue. welcome governor haley and thank you mr. chairman, i yelled back. the chair as unanimous consent that the gentleman from new york be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in this hearing. chair thanks a gentleman. thank you governor from being hit today. witnesses for written
statement will appear in the record. the chernow recognizes governor haley for testimony. very much.u we invite all of you to south carolina where it is 80 degrees and sunny. members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak on this issue of national importance. i especially want to thank congressman duncan and other members of the south carolina delegation for their support on this issue. myaugust of last year, office was contacted out of the blue by the department of defense to inform us they were traveling to charleston south carolina to assess the u.s. naval consolidated brig for the possibility of housing guantanamo bay detainees. imagine my surprise. not only was it against federal law, to transfer guantanamo detainees into the united states, but why would anyone want to put terezin charleston? charleston, the city be called the holy city, the city named
the number one vacation spot in the country for four years in a row. in south carolina, the state that was named the front they state the country. the most patriotic thing the union. it makes zero sense. on february 20 third, 316, president obama announced his plan to close guantanamo bay detention facility currently used to house some of the deadliest terrorist in history. including the principal architect of the september 11 attacks. contain little new information. it did not even name a state facility for potential. but instead reference the department of defense's 2015 of 13 potential, but unidentified facilities. in the opening paragraph of the plan, president obama resents three reasons for why it is a national security imperative. that the united states and its
mission and guantanamo bay. regardless of any man that may support these at assertions, they do not support the conclusion that the terrace should be transferred to charleston south carolina. or any other location and the united states. i know the other witnesses today will discuss a specific costs and security concerns. my testimony today will focus on three specific reasons provided by the president's plan. first, the president claims that guantanamo bay serves as propaganda. and a recruitment tool. of course it does. but so deuce statements by public leaders. the united states stands against terrorism. so do certainly would have similar facility located in charleston south carolina, leavenworth kansas, or colorado. parents have chosen to wage -- terrace have chosen to wage war on the americans because of the
fundamental meetings in which you bring ourselves. the september 11 attacks occurred before there was ever a guantanamo bay facility. as did the first world trade center bombing. and numerous other attempted attacks on united and interest around the world. operations from a secure facility outside of the continental united states and into charleston well not stop the propaganda. this line of thinking is giving the terrorist too much credit and too much validity. terrorists do not need a deal to hate us. they hate us on their own. second, the president contends that the presence of the facility and guantanamo bay is somehow a major impediment to our relationship with foreign nations. governor, my principal engagement outside the united states is admittedly on the
economic development front. attracting foreign investment to my state, that being said, assuming the president's assertions are true, the question that comes to my mind, thatat about the activity guantanamo bay is damaging to our relations with foreign leaders? whether the terrace are contained in cuba or somewhere in the united states, they will be held under the same legal authority by the same country, in the same manner, for the same duration, for the same reasons. why does the zip code matter? for the impact on for an relations in south carolina, i can tell you i am tremendously concerned. the charleston area alone, we have international manufacturing boeing, mercedes-benz, and now volvo. we have one of the most
important deepwater ports on the alanna south carolina is home to the largest bmw producing plan the world. we have five international power companies. google, bosch,, dupont, i could go on and on. how might you tell these companies that they will be sharing and adjust with the most heinous and dangers tears on earth. tot the city that they chose call home is now going to be one of the most high-profile terrorist targets in the world. the truth is, i cannot. and i will not. finally, the president wants to talk about cost. if there is say, one thing we can all agree, the federal government is absolutely responsible for, it is defending the people of united states of america. while the department of defense is not immune from fiscal ways, running a military prison to detain terrorist during ongoing
armed conflict should not be high on the list of cost saving measures. i come from a state where we balance our budget. you find, we can help 85 million summer as to cap. but more than that, cost simply does not matter to me. you could pay the state of south carolina to host these terrorists, and we would not take them for any amount of money. there is no price worth the fee is this reckless idea which strike in the heart of of my stay. there is no price with the inevitable economic downturn it would cause. and there is no price worth watching terrorists across the ande celebrate victory rightly claim that they can dictate the military posture of what should be the most powerful nation in the world. i would like to close with this. as the members of this committee know better than most, national security decisions should be made with one and only one consideration of mine.
what is in the best interest of the safety and security of the citizens of the united states? issues withs policy no it easy answers underlined the long-term detention and final disposition of terrorists captured during armed conflict, the location of the united states controlled military prison should not be determined based on these estimates an eight-year-old campaign promises. last summer, the people charleston stared hate directly the eye. we know today. and we know what fear it can bring. we don't need to see it again. nor do we wish it on any other state. keep the terrorists where they are. where they belong. do not ring them to my home. -- bring them to my home. i again thank you for the opportunity to speak it today. and i look for to your questions. >> thank you governor haley.
the chair now recognizes himself or five minutes of questions. a fair amountent of time discussing security issues. in that vein, can you please just described for the committee members some of the south carolina specific concerns that you and law enforcement agencies under your purview would have? >> the first thing is as a governor i will tell you is, what does it do to the reputation of the state where you take these detainees? so here in south carolina where we work massively on bringing made in america jobs to south carolina, what company is going to invest in the state where they keep these heinous terrorist. they are not going to. companies look at where they going to bring the suppliers. where they going to bring their customers. they don't want their reputation on them as they go for. now you look at the tour is an aspect of it. who is going to come vacation in a state that is now known to
house these terrorist. a completely taints what we have been proud to say is the number one tourist location for four years in a row. but it would do this to any other state. all of these applications are very important. and we know we are already having to stand up all of our armed bases, all of our securities because the targets right now are our servicemen and women. you are just putting another now you're going to put it on charleston south carolina. it is 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 e?r men and women saf toht now fisa down and talk my fbi affiliates, that assume your child to protect, because the targets on targets are military, any military people in uniform. and then if you go when you put it in a place like south
carolina, we are not only going to have protests, but we will also have threat that we don't have right now. why would you move something there and cause threats on this country when right this country is going to so many homegrown issues on it down to turn around and add one more to it? >> just following up on that a little bit to set the context. of course the detention facility in guantanamo bay is sequestered from, there's not going to any protests right? nobody is flying to guantanamo or would be protests at some point. of course you're not going to go there unannounced and exercise some terrorist activity. that is just not going to happen i guantanamo bay. it is shielded from that by the virtue of its geography. also i just wanted to say, of you forou have -- thank
your service and your husband's service. in that regard, can you talk it all about the cost to local law enforcement whether it is regarding protests, whether is regarding being prepared for any eventuality and to not have that failure of imagination where one of these individuals would get out, or someone would use the facility as a target, or try and get to somebody out. can you just had it all? >-- can you adjust that at all. bute can talk about cost, you cannot put a cost on fear. we looked at him 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. but i can tell you is, we have had to stand up our armed bases, we have already had to add additional security to our s intary, to our official
everything and everything we do. every state in the country now has to be more careful. cost to me as such a frivolous conversation in this. no state should ever have to know what that fear feels like. >> have the local law enforcement agencies in collaboration with federal enforcement agencies down any cost estimates that you know what? like you said, it is very difficult to quantify, but at some point, it is going to training,ditional manpower, equipment, briefings, protocols. begun, and even started down that road and have local law-enforcement officials aware of this express any concern to you? ofwe talk to our directors our military bases.
spend whatevero it takes to protect my people. but what i will tell you again that on is something every level b law enforcement, military, terrorism, economic development, every call that i have gotten has been please don't let this happen to south carolina. thank you governor. my time has expired. the chair now recognizes the ranking members mr. thompson for his quick five minutes of questions. >> thank you very much. i again governor thank you for appearing before this committee this morning. have you had any dealings with the proposed facility that they are talking about potentially transferring the prisoners to? the department of defense has had no interactions with us whatsoever outside of suddenly giving a call saying that they were going to be going to the charlestown navy break.
that is all we got. they have had no communication with us or tell us what to expect. >> to your knowledge are you as governor spending any are you, as governor, spending from a taxpayer standpoint in the maintenance of operation of a naval facility? now, not any additional money is being spent on that facility besides economic development issues within the area. theyhas stopped now that have decided to come in. it would be helpful if the department of defense let us know what they're doing. >> i agree. a phone call would not be enough. but if they demonstrated they ofld pick up the cost whatever is involved, is that a concern of yours or is there another ?
>> they could tell me they would pay for it and i would not take it. >> i appreciate your opinion. happened ined what charleston relative to the unfortunate sent -- circumstances at mother a manual. some of us also participated in funeral services and other things. it was not a good day. is the other ugly head of terrorism, called domestic terrorism. i compliment you and the local law enforcement for how you addressed it. can you, for the record, tell me young manstody of the charged with killing the people at mother emmanuel?
>> he is in south carolina. >> is he in a federal community or state facility? >> i believe a state facility. >> do you know where? charleston? where? who committed a heinous crime is in charleston right now. has that posed any kind of security issues to your knowledge for the people of charleston? >> we will not let it pose any security issues. i can tell you it is a constant reminder of what happened and what we have to deal with. we have to know that he is there. no one wants them there. in the process of going forward with the death penalty. >> there is no issue on my part to pursue the death penalty at all, but sometimes we have
difficult jobs to do that include dealing with bad people. as governor, you and local officials are dealing with these bad people. thisred to make sure person is kept in a facility where he cannot harm anyone to the extent he is prosecuted to the full's extent of the law, the oath of office and other things would allow you to expand what other -- whatever resources expand the safety of the people of south carolina. that is the point i am trying to get to. >> yes, our goal is we will deal with him as we need to. wet was a homegrown issue will deal with. we do not want 80 more coming to charleston. theing with one has shaken state enough. i cannot imagine what we would have to do if we had to deal with 80 of them. thank you.
>> thank you. the chair now recognizes mr. duncan. i apologize the ranking member had to bring discussion about a deranged into this discussion. on ofaram, the list goes organizations. there are global organized -- global terror organizations that have a different mindset that are deranged and hit -- 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 it to be made very clear, any 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 sounded 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 terrorists backed by the organizations i mentioned earlier, two states in violation of the ndaa which is a bilateral ndaa that goes back several congresses. bring these terrorists to south carolina, kansas or maybe another state without any correspondence with the governor? the governor represents 4.8 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 organizations 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 explanation 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. obviously, and today we are in 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 deal 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 walhalla, 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
that i haven't heard many talk about, and that is the threat of additional terrorist attacks because you are housing known terrorists. if you recall the garland, texas, terrorist attack, that was because there was an art competition that they felt was offensive to muslims. 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 bay? governor haley: not that i'm aware of. mr. loudermilk: do you know if any detainee or attempted terrorist attack against a u.s. military facility at guantanamo bay? 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. perry: 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: 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 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 bay 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. 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 bay 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. mr. duncan: 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. the bill i filed, h.r. 661 -- 617 would give paul ryan and the house of representatives standing to stop this through legal means. i would ask riggelman to sign on. thank you. i yield back. >> in the chair thanks the gentleman and thanks governor haley for her valuable testimony. the first panel, governor come you are excused. the clerk will prepare the witnesses table for the second panel.