>> that will do it for us. we are going to bring it to you early, miss costello. >> i appreciate every precious second. >> sell, sell, sell. >> sold. "newsroom" starts now. happening now in the "newsroom." >> dollars do not vote. you do. >> cantor collapses in the common wealth. >> it is disappointing, sure but i believe in this country. >> the tea party candidate tommi toppling the gop. shocker, surprise. stunning. >> the power belongs to the people. layihagel in the hot seat. >> he will be forthright and candid. >> the defense secretary front and center of the bergdahl swap appearing before the house armed services committee. our levels of gun violence are off the charts president obama on the organ school shooting. >> the united states does not

have a monopoly on crazy people. >> renewing a call for tougher gun laws saying america should be ashamed. downsizing your debt. >> if you fight, you've got a chance to win. >> elizabeth warren trying to erase tens of thousands of your student loans. >> make no ismistake, this is a emergency. >> the massachusetts senator joins us this hour. let's talk. live in the "cnn newsroom." good morning. i'm carol costello. thank you so much for joining me. we begin this morning with a political upset for the history books. house majority leader, eric cantor, going down to defeat, to an unknown economics professor by the name of dave brat. in a speech last night, brat credited grassroots groups like the tea party plus the gop base along with his conservative philosophy for his win.

>> it's not about dave brat winning tonight. it is about returns the country to constitutional principles. it's about returning the country to judaeo-christian principles and it is about returning this country to free market principles. >> over at cantor headquarters, a ir the seventh term congressman conceded the race. immigration activists stormed his event chanting their demands for immigration reform and clashing with cantor supporters. police had to get them out of there. it was a crazy scene.

dana bash is on capitol hill. have you ever seen anything like this? >> no, because it hasn't happened in our lifetime. if we don't think ever that the house majority leader was defeated at all. never mind by somebody in his own party. i want to set the scene for you. i am not in the capitol, down the hall behind me is the entrance to the suite that eric cantor has in this capitol, one that he is not going to have very much longer. we are talking to his aides and to people face to face who are incredibly shocked. >> the reason we won this campaign, there is just one reason. that's because dollars do not vote. you do. >> an upset shaking washington and randling incumbent republicans to their core. house majority leader, eric cantor, losing his primary to a little-known conservative challenger, economics professor, david brat. >> it is disappointing, sure.

i believe in this country. i believe there is opportunity around the next corner for all of us. >> the number two republican in the house was widely considered and preparing to be the next speaker of the house following john boehner. >> i had, i'm david brat. i'm running for the united states congress. >> even brat himself told cnn he didn't think he could pull off a win about a war chest of only 300 thousand compared to cantor's $5 million. cantor learned firsthand that money doesn't buy enthusiasm. the grassroots in his virginia district were determined to take the establishment republican down. >> eric cantor is trying to buy this election with corporate cash from los angeles and new york. he is acting as a conservative in public while working behind the scenes to deliver open board borders for large corporations. his main case against cantor was support for legal status for illegal immigrant children and he pledged to help the president in doing so. >> it is time to provide an

opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those brought to this country as children and who know no other home. >> cantor is considered one of the most con sieve tiff member of the house gop leadership. he had been thinking like a party leader, trying to broaden the gop's appeal after the government shutdown that divided house republicans, cnn learned that he admonished his rank and file to unite. >> you addressed your caucus. and basically said, come on, guys, we have to stop eating our own. >> i think the message that i was about was saying, look, the differences that may exist between us, pale in comparison to the differences that we have with the president and his policies. >> now, again, carol, i am in the capital. we are waiting for eric cantor to arrive. he was driving back this morning from his virginia district. boy, does he have a lot of decisions to make now. first and foremost, is there an outside chance that he would run

as a write-in candidate? i am told, don't expect that. it is possible. legally allowed in virginia but unlikely he would take that route. i think the first question and the most pressing question is whether or not he is going to stay on as house majority leader or whether he will give up that leadership role and allow whomever the new leadership members are and will be who want to run and get started on that. again, we don't know. his aides say they have just allowed eric cantor to be with his family and try to absorb this shocking news. they are going to huddle this morning and start to answer many of the questions that they need to answer about his future and that will obviously have a lot of trickle-down effects. >> chief congressional correspondent, dana bash, thanks so much. taylor budwich is the executive director of tea party express. welcome. >> tell me how you are feeling. >> feeling great. another victory for the tea party movement.

everyone writes the obituary but they get it wrong every single week, it seems. >> this is a big win for the tea party. i will say that dave brat won with no financial backing from any major tea party group. he says he ran on republican principles that this was not a contest between the tea party and establishment. so is this really a victory for your movement? >> well, everybody likes to describe the tea party movement as this top down centralized organization. it is just not that. >> this is dave brat, though. >> he credited the tea party movement and he credited grassroots activists throughout his district. that's what we saw here. the enthusiasm isn't just always brought in by the national groups. we have seen that happen quite often. that's not always the case. these national groups like tea party express, we exist because of local activists on the ground that are making a difference in their communities. >> i guess what i'm asking you, in states like mississippi, let's say, the tea party poured a lot of money into that run. but in the state of virginia, it

really didn't. dave brat pulled off this miracle win. those are his words. >> remember, i think dave brat hit it directly in his victory speech when he said, money doesn't buy votes. voters vote. that's what happened. the message matters. he got his message out. money is just a way to spread your message. but it doesn't actually buy the votes. the message does and what the candidate is running on. david brat successfully articulated a tea party message of fiscal responsibility and economic growth. that's why it is victorious. >> well are let me run this by you too. eric cantor was hammered for his support of a gop version of the dream act this week. we saw hundreds of undocumented children transferred from texas to arizona after that state's facilities reached capacity. was it the immigration issue really that brought eric cantor down. >> i think what we saw was immigration was the symptom of the problem. the problem is that so many of

these d.c. politicians go to d.c., get hooked up in the cocktail circuit and the power structure around d.c. and lose touch with their district and their voters that's what we saw. immigration was one issue. eric cantor has lost touch with his district. that's what we are seeing across the country and in mississippi with senator thad cochran, who is set to lose after 42 years serving in the united states senate to little-known state senator, chris mcdaniel. these politicians have lost touch. that's what the grassroots voters have risen up, frustrated with what's going on in washington, d.c., frustrated with the out-of-control spending. these politicians that aren't standing up for them. they are these politicians that believe in the problem is tomorrow. fix the problem tomorrow. people are tired of that. they want the problems fixed today.

>> taylor budwich, thanks so much for sharing your insight. i appreciate it. >> thank you so much. >> still to come, an american soldier freed from terrorists and some say now held hostage by political mud-slinging in washington. minutes from now, the first public hearing on the prisoner swap for bowe bergdahl. let me get this straight... [ female voice ] yes?

lactaid® is 100% real milk? right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? [ female announcer ] lactaid. 100% real milk. no discomfort. come on, would i lie about this? when salesman alan ames books his room at laquinta.com, he gets a ready for you alert the second his room is ready. so he knows exactly when he can check in and power up before his big meeting. and when alan gets all powered up, ya know what happens? i think the numbers speak for themselves. i'm sold! he's a selling machine! put it there. and there, and there, and there. la quinta inns & suites is ready for you, so you'll be ready for business. the ready for you alert, only a laquinta.com!

la quinta! life with crohn's disease ois a daily game of "what if's". what if my abdominal pain and cramps end our night before it even starts? what if i eat the wrong thing? what if? what if i suddenly have to go? what if? but what if the most important question is the one you're not asking? what if the underlying cause of your symptoms is damaging inflammation? for help getting the answers you need, talk to your doctor and visit crohnsandcolitisadvocates.com to connect with a patient advocate from abbvie for one-to-one support and education.

on the hill and under the microscope, chuck hagel testifies on the controversial prisoner swap that freed bowe bergdahl. worried that exchanging five taliban detainees for bergdahl's freedom was simply too high of a cost. >> we've made americans less safe here and all around the world. we're dpgonna pay for this. there is not any doubt in my mind there are going to be lost

lives associated with what came out of this. >> my next guess dismisses much of the criticism as partisan game-playing and is appalled by what she views as demonizing a captured american soldier. jan joins us from washington. welcome. >> thank you, carol. >> many of your fellow democrats criticize this five for one swap and the white house's lack of notifying congress beforehand. why do you think this is partisan? >> oh, i think most of the criticism has come from the republican side. even from people who in the past have said they really want to see bowe bergdahl taken back, that we should retrieve him from the taliban. suddenly, when it became clear it was successful, the outrage began. people who are tweeting in favor and saying what a blessing it is that he is coming home, removed those tweets and changed sides

completely. we don't do background checks on soldiers before we bring them back. one of my colleagues said, he had forfeited his right to be rescued and to be traded for, because he had deserted, which, of course, has not even been closely proven yet. everyone in america is innocent until proven guilty. this notification issue. really, you are going to tell a secret to 435 people. >> the administration told 80 or 90 people in the white house. why not inform one member of congress you are going to do this controversial swap. >> the president made it very clear in his signing statement on the national defense authorization act that that 30-day notification period, that he would use his executive authority if it had to do with a

detain kn detainee transfer. 90 people may have been involved in this operation. it is a very sensitive operation. one would have expected. i certainly would have expected that we would see it as a good thing that a soldier that had been in captivity by the taliban for five years was brought home. that's what we do for our soldiers. >> but members of congress were informed about osama bin laden and the raid about to go down. >> actually, that is not true. i'm on the intelligence committee. the day before the osama bin laden operation, we were not told anything about this operation taking place. for years, congress has known that this has been in the works. i think the idea that making a big deal about informing in days or the moment of this on per racial is really grabbing at

straws for something to criticize the president for. i think the real issue is that the fundamental belief that we leave no american soldier behind is the one that dominates here. i'm very happy to see thabo bergdahl is back. now, we will find out exactly what happened, which is proper. we don't want to leave to the taliban his punishment, if such is deserved. >> chuck hagel is going to testify before a senate committee. do you think he will get a fair hearing? >> i think chuck hagel will be very powerful. everyone i have heard from the administration, including military people, have been very clear. in fact, it was called reprehensible when some of my colleagues were saying that, well, beau didn't really deserve this. we shouldn't have done it. this was bad. look at. the exchange of prisoners is common in every conflict, not

only here but around the world. our israeli friends released more than 1,000 prisoners for one gilad shalit. the israeli people were glad that they did. we have throughout our history done these kind of exchanges and not with the same kind of precautions we are doing this time along with the qatarees that are going to monitor these five taliban people that are released. >> jan schakowsky, thank you so much for your insight. i appreciate it. still to come, a 14-year-old boy is dead after a school shooting in oregon. this all-too-common tragedy is reignited the contentious gun control debate. yep. we are going to talk about it again next. [announcer] play close-good and close.

help keep teeth clean and breath fresh with beneful healthy smile snacks. with soft meaty centers and teeth cleaning texture,it's dental that tastes so good. beneful healthy smile food and snacks. means keeping seven billion ctransactions flowing.g, and when weather hits, it's data mayhem. but airlines running hp end-to-end solutions are always calm during a storm. so if your business deals with the unexpected, hp big data and cloud solutions make sure you always know what's coming - and are ready for it. make it matter.

you could be hanging ten. what are you waiting for? seize the summer with up to 40% off hotels from travelocity.

a soccer player, a great friend is how those that knew emilio hoffmann describe him. hoffman, a 14-year-old freshman was shot and killed at reynolds high school in portland, oregon. he is the latest victim. a lone killer armed with an assault rifle opened fire in a gym lockerroom killing haffman. todd grisler was grazed but a bullet but expected to be okay. the lights turned off as s.w.a.t. teams moved in. >> reynolds high school there are those in the locker room. we need the robot inside.

we've got a suspect down on the toilet where we can not see him. >> we heard mr. dixon come over the intercom and say, this is no the a drill. we need to go into lockdown right now zechlt was carrying a gun running after one of our teachers. >> the gunman was found dead inside t inside the school. sources telling cnn he shot himself. they say he was a student at the school. this latest incident of gun violence have litigators a huge fire under the gun debate again. by one count, there have been 74 school shootings since the sandy hook massacre in 2012. president venting his frustrations, calling gun violence off the charts and that we should all be ashamed. >> the united states does not have a monopoly on crazy people. it is not the only country that has psychosis. yet, we kill each other these

mass shootings that are exponentially higher than any place else. what's the difference? the difference is that these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses that's sort of power for the course. the country has to do some soul searching about this. this is becoming the norm. >> cliff scheckter who wrote an op ed for t"the daily beast." we are reaping what they have sewed, their rhetoric, their firearms policies, it starts with not sugar-coating or ignoring the treasonous and murdererous role played by the leaders of the nra but by acknowledging it and taking them on every day.

joining m joining me now is cliff scheckter. those are tough words. some might say too tough. can you hear me, cliff? we don't have audio, do we? shall we take a break and come back? all right. we are going to go to break and come back with more right after this. i apologize. hotels.com mobile app on my mobile phone. hotels.com i don't need it right now. i'm j-e-f-f and i have copd. i'm l-i-s-a and i have copd, but i don't want my breathing problems to get in the way of hosting my book club. that's why i asked my doctor about b-r-e-o. once-daily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. and breo helps reduce symptom flare-ups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. breo is not for asthma. breo contains a type of medicine

that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. breo won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. breo may increase your risk of pneumonia, thrush, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking breo. ask your doctor about b-r-e-o for copd. first prescription free at mybreo.com the clean air act stops polluters from... poisoning his air with arsenic, lead and mercury. now the loop hole that lets them pump unlimited carbon...

pollution into his air is closing too. if polluters and their friends in washington don't interfere. don't let polluters weaken our clean air protections. how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going to have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or more. so maybe we need to approach things differently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

welcome back.

cliff scheckter of "the daily beast" is going to join us. he blames the nra for the recent violence we have seen in our schools and schools across the country and the awful incident that went down in los angeles. he says, quote, we are reaping what they, the nra, have sewed. if we want to change things, it starts with not sugar-coating or ignoring the treasonous and murderous role played by the leaders of the nra by acknowledging it and taking it on every day. hi, cliff. can you hear me now? >> i can hear you now. we are all set to go. calling the nra murderous and treasonous. that's really strong. >> it is, carol. i feel like we have watched the same play over and over again. while i was writing the piece that i wrote on this murder of these two police officers in las vegas, we had this next shooting in oregon and you can't sit down

to write things without the next one happening. the nra has spent 30 years pumping paranoia into the most unstable members of society telling them that black helicopters are coming to get them, that president obama is coming to get them, that the government is killing them, that the atf are thugs. they fight every attempt at reasonable gun regulation. 90% of the country supports background checks and they blocked it. 70% supports an assault weapons ban. they have done what they can to light the fire to insight riot among people that are left than stable, that have a far right wing agenda and they have made sure these people have access of weaponry of war that as recently as 30 years ago, people couldn't get those kind of weapons. now, they are everywhere. >> the las vegas shooting, let's go back for that. there was a customer in walmart. his name was joseph wilcox. he was carrying a concealed weapon legally.

he died in this. he tried to stop it. police called him a hero. in that instance, the nra would argue that, you know, carrying a gun can actually save lives. >> well, they would but, you know, i think the evidence here. i feel terrible for what happened to him. look at the evidence. we had two good guys with guns. policemen, somebody walked up to them and shot them point blank range and killed them. we have this gentlemen in walmart, another good guy with a gun, who was shot and killed, even though these two terrible people had only asked everybody to leave the store. what if he had missed and hit other innocent people. what if they had fired back? it is the job of the authorities to show up and handle that situation. we are not living in a cowboy movie. i don't want to be disrespectful. i think he did what he thought was right. we have encouraged people to open carry guns to restaurants, to conceal carry guns. we are telling them they are the law, the jury, the judge and the

executioner and more people end up getting killed. the university ofe pennsylvania epidemiology has said, you are four times more to die than to stop an intruder. >> to blame everything on the nra, is infathunfair. you have to place the blame on the lawmakers as well. >> you are entirely right. i do blame lawmakers. in many of these pieces i have written, i have called the entire republican caucus cow wards. there are a number of democrats, blue dog democrats, those four senators that voted against the background checks. they are cowards also. it is a bipartisan problem. it is a lot more on the republican side where you can barely get one to support it. here is the quick answer. we know how to do this. every other high-income country,

as president obama said, has done this. australia had the port arthur massacre, like our new town where 40 people or so were killed. many other injured. what did they do? they passed a series of strict gun laws. they had 11 mass shootings in the ten years before. they have not had one since. the suicide rate has gone down 70%. the guns with homicides have gone down about 70%. we have seen it in england, france and canada. canada and australia had that same frontier history as us. we are willing to look at this as a public health problem like drunk driving, second-hand smoke and regulate it in that manner which is to say some people should not have access to guns. we should have universal background checks, psychological tests. people should have a few family members vouch for them, which is what most other countries do. family members knew that these people were in trouble and didn't want them getting their hands on guns. we can do this. every other country has done it. we have the powerful lob by and

kourds in congress who are stopping us from doing it right now. >> cliff scheckter, thank you so much for sharing your insight. we did reach out to the nra. we did not hear back. thank you, cliff. now, to the escalating crisis in iraq. the violence is spreading causing chaos. a shiite cleric said he is ready to defend the holy places of muslims and christians. residents are fleeing, more than half a million. and all qaeda-backed insurgents are gaining major territory. they control mosul, the second largest city. casualties are said to be high. nic robertson has more. >> reporter: after just five days of fighting, terrorists now control large swaths of iraq's second largest city. power, water, and phone lines have been cut in parts of mosul, 250 miles north of baghdad where the all qaeda splinter group, isis, has seized the important

transportation and administration hub. iraqi prime minister, nuri al maliki, calling it a humanitarian crisis and asking parliament to declare a state of emergency, calling on men to volunteer to fight. the speaker of iraq's parliament urging the u.s. to play a role in supporting iraq against the terrorist attack and asking for urgent relief for the displaced by the international community. the voice of a refugee in this video pleading, god, help us as half a million iraqees have fled the city. >> we are in touch of iraqi leadership. this is for the iraqi security force rs and the iraqi government to deal with. >> reporter: the fight proving too much for the u.s.-trained iraqi soldiers. some reportedly discarding their uniforms, abandoning their

military armed vehicles and weapons, leaving it all to a terrorist group considered more ruthless and brutal than all qaeda. isis gaining more power and control in a city once held as a successful example of u.s. counter insurgency. only 2 1/2 years after american boots left iraqi soil. >> senior international correspondent, nic robertson, is in qatar this morning. jim shciutto is in washington. i want to start with you, knini. this is so disturbing to most americans, because it makes our mission there seem pointless. >> reporter: certainly, a concern that the iraqi forces that we trained, we armed, we equipped, have fled in the face of what is essentially a terrorist organization, that they haven't stood their ground.

they have not only ceded ground but their weapons. they now have u.s.-made armoured hum-vs. they are upping their gain by taking control of mosul. they won't stand their ground and the political institution in iraq aren't strong enough, haven't been strong enough to head all this off in the first place, which was a potential. they could have done it. jim, all those american lives lost in iraq, close to $2 trillion spent, all for naught. >> i spent so many weeks and months there after the invasion, 10 or 15 visits. you do have to wonder what our legacy is. the administration's priority has been getting out of iraq. the president's position was that it was a dumb war. in effect, to keep those troops there was throwing good money after bad as it were. the administration's critics

say, whatever you think of the invasion, that a stabilizing force, say 10,000 americans, had the administration successfully investigating a status of force agreement with the iraqis, that you would have something of a stabilizing force to help prevent the kind of violence we are seeing there right now. in iraq and afghanistan, the administration's priority really has been getting out. >> so i guess, nic, this question is for you. can the united states really afford to leave this in the hands of iraqi security forces? >> reporter: the bigger, broader answer is, do they have much choice? there has to be a huge political will to reengage. it is beyond my expectation and other peoples to think we won't go back in. what nuri al maliki needs to do is what the u.s. marines did in anal bar province where there was al qaeda problem in 2006 and

2007 was embrace the sunni tribes. this group in iraq is angry with nuri al maliki, his advancing his shiite muslim agenda over theirs. that means a political compromise. what he gets out of that is he gets those sunni tribes on site. they can be used against al qaeda which is what the marines did in an albar. can we afford not to do something? greater instability to come. foreign fighters attracted to ice si isis. thousands of european foreign fighters coming. potential, as we saw, possibly not there yet, that fatal shooting of four people at a jewish museum in brussels three weeks ago, indicates potentially the person that did that had been a foreign fighter in iraq,

in syria, rather, with isis, gone back to europe for an attack. all of these are at stake. can we afford not to get involved? it is hard to see how we could at this stage. >> still to come in the "newsroom," hagel in the hot seat. can the defense secretary make the case for one of the most controversial prisoner swaps in u.s. history. we will look ahead in the next hour and look back on his bungled testimony in an earlier appearance on capitol hill.

at the top of the hour, congress held its first public hearing on the prisoner swap that freed u.s. army soldier, bowe bergdahl. the deal has angered soldiers in both parties. it was too costly to exchange five taliban detainees for his freedom.

they are upset they were not able to voice concerns beforehand. defending that deal today, chuck hagel. he faces a hostile grilling and the ghost of his nomination hearing. remember that. he didn't do so well. he stumbled badly. >> i can't give you an example. what i meant to say, i should have said that i -- misspoke. z . >> well, hagel's poor performance almost cost him a nomination that had been all but assured. let's look ahead. joining me david gergen , ana navarro and patricia murphy. welcome to all of you. >> good morning. >> so patricia, i understand from "the new york times" that chuck hagel has been working and working on his initial statement before this committee. he has had five different drafts. he is going to be strong. will he deliver? >> oh, if you look at his own hearing, his own hearing for his own confirmation, which should have been a lay-up.

these were people, senators who he knows well. he was asked about his own experiences when he was in the senate and even failed to deliver good answers on his own experience, i don't know how he can deliver on this. i just don't know. i know democrats are worried that he is their spokesman at this time but because of his own experience in the infantry and vietnam, walking the line, having that question in his mind, what do we do when somebody goes missing, i think that will help him a lot. his track record is very troubling. >> he is going to be attacked, isn't he, by both sides. >> i think he is going to be asked some tough questions. i have some questions i would like to see asked. i want to know why it is that bergdahl's platoon members were made to sign do not disclose agreements. i want to know why they didn't go to congress. i want to know what the evidence was that this was such an urgent issue. i think there are tough questions. he better have some good

answers. >> i think you are right about that, ana. >> some republicans say hagel is being made the scapegoat for that controversial prisoner swap. let's listen. >> it was the president of the united states that came out with the bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there has been a little pushback, he is moving away from it and giving it to secretary hagel. i don't think so. i think this is the president's decision. >> i can hear that line of questioning coming down before the senate committee. is it fair? >> it is a fair question. i think in fairness to the administration, the white house quickly came along and said, no, this was the president's decision. yes, chuck hagel did authorize it. ultimately, the president signed off. i believe he actually will be very effective in arguing the case and going after bergdahl. in vietnam, as an enlisted man, he had to go after people themselves even if they had wondered off and made mistakes about where they were in the

jungles. on that issue, he will be very good. he is going to have a much, much tougher time explaining the terms of the swap, why the congress was not informed as the law required and we have learned today, new news out today that not even the top commander in afghanistan and the head of central command knew about this until just at the last minute, knew about the details of this. we also have learned today there is a report that secretary hagel, himself, the decision was made so swiftly by the white house that he, himself, had not been fully briefed yet by his own team on the details surrounding bergdahl's wondering off. when you get into the details, that's when the picture becomes much darker about what bergdahl aup to. >> that's just it. i keep saying senate committee. it is the congressional committee. i apologize for that. it does seem the administration comes out with a different story every hour. that really muddies the waters

further for the american people. >> it does. i think david gergen hit the nail on the head. was the bergdahl decision the right one. was it right to go after the american that was still a p.o.w. and the second issue, how the white house ruled this out and wa how they have told people about it and what was behind the decision. the bergdahl decision, people can make up their own mintdds. we were not there. we are not the right people to judge that. the white house has muddied the waters. they have done a huge disservice to bergdahl, his parents, congress and the american people. >> do you think we will hear more about bergdahl and what happened? they want to talk to him and interrogate him and all that. he is not in the proper shape to do that. they must know something more about the circumstances of his wondering away from his platoon. >> i don't think that we are going to hear too much about that in detail, because i think that they are going to wait to do a proper investigation when bergdahl is back and able to

speak and they are able to ask him the questions they need to. i think it is going to revolve around the issues that david brought up. i wasn't surprised by what david just said about how the white house had made this decision and not even briefed some of the people on the ground and not even fully briefed secretary hagel until afterwards. we have known that this white house micro manages the cabinet and rolls out these issues in a political way. the reason this backfired, is because they made it a political rollout as a symbolism of ending the war. they wanted to have victory. they wanted the rose garden ceremony. that's where things started to go awry. >> well, the hearing gets underway just around 10:10, 10:15 eastern. cnn will carry that live. david gergen, ana navarro, patricia murphy, thanks to all of you. i appreciate it. i want to return to our top story,

>> congressman terry was walking by giving his constituents a tour. i asked him to come on live. thank you for coming on. what kind of impact do you think that this has on your party and on your republican rank and file in the house? >> first of all, it's just stunning that this happened and secondly, it's just sending shivers throughout the republican conference. we're trying to analyze what really happened here. i think the message is that, you know, if you're not part of that crowd, eric is the number two guy for being the establishment, and this is very much a nonestablishment year. if you're in congress, people are angry at you. >> reporter: you watched him work. you've been in congress for eight terms. fair to say he's been among the most, if not the most, conser conservative in the party.

>> he's in with the more conservative and the other parts of congress. but i guess that's not good enough. if you're part of leadership, you've got a target on you. >> reporter: you've had primary challenge i challenges. >> the last two from the right. there's not a lot of room on my right. >> reporter: as a rank and file republican, seeing what happened to your leader, do you feel less inclined to compromise now? >> i think that's one of the messages is that first of all if you're here, you've got a target just because you're here. you can do great work but they're still going to come after you. number two, do we compromise? how do we work together? all of this is now in question. >> reporter: is that a yes? or i guess i should say are you more reluctant to compromise now? >> you have to look at each issue. the first thing you're going to say is there political harm in

having negotiations? negotiations is a bad thing now. >> reporter: that was already the case. it was already very hard to govern here with a democratic president, democratic senate and a house republican conference that has many of them already scared of their own shadows for lack of a better way to say it from the right. hard to imagine it worse, do you think it will be? >> i think it will be. that was one of the specific things used against eric was not only was he establishment but that he was part of these compromises like what kept the government open. that was used against him. the message to us is negotiation or compromise could get you beat. >> you're here with constituents from nebraska giving them a tour. it's still early. we're trying to figure out what exactly happened. do you think maybe he failed politics 101 and didn't tend to his constituents enough? >> that's interesting. a bunch of us got together last

night to do our own assessment. that was one of the things. maybe he didn't spend enough time in his district and that's always a fatal flaw. >> reporter: now, he's also a leader. as you said, the grassroots doesn't like the establishment. maybe it's not so much about the issues just that he's an inside guy and they're outside people? >> i would agree with that. i heard a lot that maybe it was immigration. i don't think it was any one issue. i think, a, you're establishment and, b, when you become a leader you become a national guy so your time is spread out so thin that maybe you don't get to your district as much. >> reporter: thank you. congressman, thank you very much. maybe your timing wasn't so great walking by us but i appreciate it very much. carol, fascinating to hear firsthand from a congressman saying that he's going to think twice before voting for something that might be even perceived as compromise because of what happened. >> interesting. you know, on the other issue,

some feel that eric cantor might run as a write-in candidate in the general election. do you think he will? >> reporter: unlikely. i've been waved off that. eric cantor is meeting with his staff as we speak here in the capitol to go over all of his options but i'm told that's pretty unlikely. he's in a republican district. it is possible. it is legal to do that. it would be very tough haul and it would be especially as a party leader probably something he's not interested in. the question we're looking at now and the open question is whether he's going to even stay in the house republican leadership and whether he'll remain on as house majority leader or step down and let the games begin for lack of a better way to say it to fill his seat. i don't think that the house speaker would like that because they want some calm, some unity as much as they can have as this primary season winds down in order to really focus on beating democrats in november. >> all right.

dana bash, thanks so much. thanks to representative lee terry as well. the next hour of "newsroom" after a break. [announcer] play close-good and close. help keep teeth clean and breath fresh with beneful healthy smile snacks. with soft meaty centers and teeth cleaning texture,it's dental that tastes so good. beneful healthy smile food and snacks. and we're here in detroit ent michigan helping folks refinance their homes and save money. does it make sense to refinance right now?

a lot of times we can lower the monthly payment, we can consolidate debt. we just want to make sure that you know your options, and we're here for you. we're not just number crunchers. i specialize in what i do and i care about my clients. from beginning, the middle and to the end, you're gonna talk to someone. not a machine. call us today for a mortgage experience that's engineered to amaze. looks like we're about to board. mm-hmm. i'm just comparing car insurance rates at progressive.com. is that where they show

the other guys' rates, too? mm-hmm. cool. yeah. hi. final boarding call for flight 294. [ bells ring on sign ] [ vehicle beeping ] who's ready for the garlic festival? this guy! bringing our competitors' rates to you -- now, that's progressive. lactaid® is 100% real milk? right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, no discomfort, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? [ female announcer ] lactaid®. 100% real milk. no discomfort. and for more 100% real dairy treats you'll 100% enjoy look for lactaid® ice cream and lactaid® cottage cheese.

[ jackhammer pounding, horns honking ] [ siren wailing ] visit tripadvisor miami. [ bird chirping ] with millions of reviews, tripadvisor makes any destination better. he gets a ready for you alert the second his room is ready. when sales rep steve hatfield withbooks at laquinta.com, so he knows exactly when he can prep for his presentation. and when steve is perfectly prepped, ya know what he brings? and that's how you'll increase market share. any questions? can i get an "a", steve? yes! three a's! amazing sales! he brings his a-game! la quinta inns and suites is ready for you,

so you'll be ready for business. the ready for you alert, only at laquinta.com! la quinta! good morning. i'm carol costello. thank you so much for joining me. this hour on capitol hill, congress holds its first public hearing on that prisoner swap that freed u.s. army soldier bowe bergdahl. lawmakers in both parties are upset with the deal that freed five taliban detainees in exchange for bergdahl's freedom. critics say that cost was too high and done without their input. so just minutes from now defense secretary chuck hagel will try to defend the deal to the house armed services committee. this is a live picture from the committee room that you're looking looking at. hagel face as grilling from a hostile panel.

>> he will talk about the decision was the right one and the process we undertook in doing so was keeping with our national interest. >> the decision marks a shift in wording. first president obama celebrated the release with bergdahl's parents and then when the deal turned unpopular, the white house said it was hagel that made a decision igniting charges that hagel was being made a scapegoat. >> it was the president of the united states that came out with the bergdahls and took all of the credit and now that there's been a little pushback, he's moving away from it. i don't think so. i think this is the president's decision. >> the president's decision or not, hagel will have to defend one of the most controversial prisoner swaps in u.s. history. we'll talk you live to capitol hill as soon as the defense secretary begins testifying. now to the other big story we're following this morning. a political earthquake sending sho shock waves from virginia and

beyond. dave brat topple be eric cantor despite seven terms in congress and greatly outspending his opponent. who exactly is dave brat? here's more about the unknown economics professor vaulted into the national political spotlight and shocked everyone in the process. the second highest ranking member of the u.s. house of representatives and a man many saw as a potential speaker, house majority leader eric cantor has lost his seat in congress. >> obviously we came up short. >> it was a mace many pundits thought cantor could not lose but he did. in a low turnout political primary, brat beat cantor by more than ten points. >> this is a miracle from god that just happened. >> brat won the republican nomination despite being outspent nearly 10 to 1.

>> there's just one reason and teas because dollars do not vote. you do. >> cantor's campaign ads actually helped raise brat's name recognition. brat argued cantor lost touch with his constituents focusing more on gop donors in new york and california. executive political editor says that brat is the shoe-in for the congressional seat. >> he'll win in november. democrats were hoping that eric cantor would run as a write-in candidate and split the vote and potentially pick up the seat. that's not going to happen. >> in an interesting turn, brat's nomination pits him against a colleague, fellow professor who accepted the democratic nomination earlier this year. for his part, eric cantor is vowing to continue his fight for conservative principles even if not from an office in washington. >> it's disappointing, sure. i believe in this country.

i believe there's opportunity around the next corner for all of us. >> joining me now, chief congressional correspondent dana bash on capitol hill. joe johns, we're hoping he'll join us from richmond in just a bit. describe just how earth shattering this upset is. >> reporter: it's hard to describe. we're in the words business and i have lost track of how many times i've used some kind of natural disaster metaphor because it really is. a sense of the color here on capitol hill as people were coming in particularly the cantor staff, he's got large staff. he's in leadership. a lot of hugging and consoling of each other. nobody thought this would happen. on a human level people are trying to get bearings on their emotions and absorb what this means. beyond the human level, the question is the political level and that too is something that

cantor aides who i have spoken with this morning are trying to wrap their minds around and data around if they can find it to really drill down on what exactly happened besides the obvious, which is that cantor simply didn't get voters out there. it just does seem on its face that cantor didn't do enough to go home to do the things you need to do, politics 101, and be in touch with your constituents. yesterday was primary day. he wasn't in his district. he was here. he was in his role as majority leader doing votes on the floor and having meetings with his caucus and even doing fundraisers for other members of his rank and file. >> i'm just going to pause for a moment and take you back into the hearing room. this congressional hearing room where this hearing is about to get under way for the bowe bergdahl prisoner swap. there's defense secretary chuck hagel. he's probably reading over his prepared statement, which he'll make minutes from now. of course he'll make that statement after statements from

the chairman and other members on this congressional committee. okay. let's head to richmond right now and check in with joe johns and talk more about eric cantor's stunning defeat. you heard what dana bash said. eric cantor didn't pay enough attention to his constituents and that's why he lost. is that what you're hearing? >> reporter: i think that is very much part of the narrative here right now, carol. look, eric cantor is well liked in washington d.c. certainly well known there, known by colleagues on capitol hill. out here in the district though -- that's not discounting the power and influence of the tea party so many people have said the tea party was having real problems in this midterm election and this infuses new energy. that said, eric cantor clearly did not know what was going on here in his district. as you heard from dana, he was on capitol hill yesterday on

election day, not here in the district until very late. as recently as two weeks ago on the second saturday before this primary election, i ran into eric cantor at a social event in bethesda, maryland, on saturday night. again, not in the district, not paying attention, not knowing what was going on here. this is a real wake-up call for him and for a lot of other politicians because again and again and again and again in national politics when it comes to senators and members of congress, they get in trouble in the primaries when they get in trouble in the general election, it's because of inattention to what is going on at home. so that's a big problem for him. i'm right now outside of dave brat's office here in virginia waiting to see him. it's been a real wake-up call for him and his staff of course. we were in there just a few minutes ago running around the phones constantly ringing.

i think this is a huge surprise for them as well. a lot of people here and in washington expected this to be a much closer race than anybody anticipated that eric cantor might get 50%, 55%, don't think a lot of people were expecting eric cantor to lose here in virginia, carol. >> joe johns, dana bash, many thanks to both of you. a busy morning here at cnn. i'm carol costello. i want to take you to washington now and wolf blitzer as i've been telling people, defense secretary chuck hagel is about to testify on that prisoner swap that freed u.s. army soldier bowe bergdahl and this hearing will -- i expect it to be quite interesting. >> i think there will be fireworks, carol. there is deep, deep anger not just republicans but a bunch of democrats as well on capitol hill right now. under severe pressure, the defense secretary chuck hagel is about to testify before the house armed services committee. he's going to face very, very gruelling questions and a huge challenge for the obama

administration, tamping down bipartisan anger over the bowe bergdahl deal. was it too costly? did the white house insult lawmakers by not seeking input beforehand? serious questions that are going to be asked. we'll see what serious questions are going to be discussed during the course of this hearing. we're covering all of the angles. correspondents and analysts will break it all down. very important moment right now in this administration's relationship with the united states congress and its credibility on a key foreign policy issue. let's begin our coverage with our chief national security correspondent, jim sciutto. a huge challenge for the defense secretary right now. he's going to be asked, jim, some very tough questions. >> no question. this is going to be a tough morning for him. he's got a tough case to make here and he's going to be challenged by members of congress, members of the hill, on both sides of the aisle. you have criticism from both republicans and democrats. i think you're going to hear a few things from secretary hagel. one, that this was a fleeting opportunity to rescue bowe

bergdahl. the time was short. his health was deteriorating. they had limited options especially with u.s. troops withdrawing. this was the time to strike. he'll make that case. i think he's also going to make the case that the administration handled this legally and five taliban being released didn't have a case to prosecute them and that they followed agreements with congress and national defense authorization bill. i think you'll hear him make a case this was legal. i think finally as well, he's going to make a case they did their best to mitigate the risks from releasing these five taliban in terms of this agreement that they have. the trouble is that we're already hearing criticism even from supporters of this prisoner exchange. i spoke to adam schiff, democratic congressman, he's seen and read this classified memorandum of understanding and he says that even during that year when they were under the qataris control, there's no

guarantee they'll stay in qatar. there's a real concern going forward. also, you heard from administration officials, for instance john kerry saying if they do return to the fight, listen, we'll get them. i spoke to a number of u.s. officials to say is there anything special in here beyond drone strikes, et cetera, that the u.s. has used in the past to get taliban commanders? no. when you hear that from u.s. officials, they express confidence in their ability to get bad guys in afghanistan. nothing special in this deal that gives them the ability to do that. it's going to be a tough case for him to make on the legal front and also on mitigating those risks going forward. >> jim sciutto will stay with us throughout our coverage of this important hearing this morning. the secretary of defense getting ready with an opening statement that will answer questions from members of the house armed services committee. let's bring in our senior white

house correspondent jim accosta. do they acknowledge praivately behind the scenes, officials at the white house, that they made a mistake in not briefing members of congress in the days or hours before this exchange occurred? >> no, wolf. they don't privately acknowledge that. they feel at this point and you know i talked to susan rice, national security adviser to the president, about this last week. they don't have any misgivings about this prisoner exchange. they don't really have misgivings about the notification to congress and we'll hear chuck hagel lay that out during his testimony as to why there was such a short timetable in terms of executing this deal and there wasn't enough time to inform lawmakers. that's the administration's viewpoint. we've heard from lawmakers over the last couple of days who said, wait a minute. 80 to 90 members of the administration knew about this in advance. we heard incoming white house press secretary say yesterday, no, no, it wasn't 80 to 90 lawmakers. that was total number that knew about these communications.

the actual number who knew about this inside the administration is much lower although he would not specify what that number is. perhaps chuck hagel will be asked about that. something else very interesting we may hear from the defense secretary and we hear from the white house, i talked to a national security council spokeswoman earlier this morning who said this administration, this president, is still determined to close the facility at guantanamo and she said while there are no imminent transfers of detainees currently being prepared for an announcement, she pointed out that they are working this issue and they are making progress on a number of promising opportunities. so this sounds like a white house that is very determined to start transferring war detainees out of guantanamo despite uproar on capitol hill right now. >> jim accosta will stay with us as well. i want to bring in our pentagon correspondent, barbara starr. barbara, what are you hearing at the pentagon about any potential

division differences of opinion among senior military brass and the white house over the wisdom of this exchange? >> well, you know, they have been saying since the beginning, wolf, that secretary hagel and the entire joint chiefs of staff supported everything that was done here. trading bowe bergdahl, getting him out of the hands of the taliban and trading those five taliban detainees at guantanamo bay. they are absolutely rock solid publicly at least that they are in agreement that the risk to national security is mitigated. make no mistake. this may be today the most pivotal hearing to date for chuck hagel as defense secretary. far more significant about his relations with congress. trust has been shaken. candor has been shaken. whether he says it or not, he knows he has to restore trust

with congress. republicans and democrats who feel that they were given short on being notified on this. it is a sense of anxiousness up and down the pentagon hallways from very senior aides. they need to see hagel pull this off. he's got to be clear, crisp, stick to the facts. he has his top lawyer sitting right next to him. steve preston, general counsel of the department who helped sign that mou. they'll try to make a clear, crisp legal case for what they have done. hagel will have to pull that out. democrats and republicans will try to pin him to the wall about all of this. he doesn't always come forth publicly and answer questions as many hope he can do. this will be closely watched today. can he make his case? >> a lot of us remember it and i'm sure you do better than

most, his confirmation hearings before the senate armed services committee, he didn't exactly get great grades although of course he was confirmed to be the secretary of defense by the armed services committee and later by the united states senate. he's got a tough challenge ahead of him. he's getting ready with his opening statement. i want to quickly bring in our intelligence and security analyst who is watching. a lot of this is going to depend on how good the government of qatar is in maintaining security over the five taliban detainees over the course of the next year and what happens afterwards. here's the question, bob. do you have confidence that qataries will do what the u.s. hopes they'll do? >> i don't know, wolf. it's an opaque government. they don't tend to share things with the united states. they have political motivations for letting these guys go back to afghanistan. on the other hand, their credibility is at stake. my guess would be that they will try to keep them under wraps for

at least a year. letting them go back to afghanistan would be a huge step back for qatar and its international credibility. >> i want to bring in a friend of the bergdahl family, a former state department official. u.s. marine captain. former captain. i guess one of the key questions a lot of these members will ask the defense secretary is did he desert? did bowe bergdahl on his own for whatever reason decide to crawl away under some barbed wire and leave that base for whatever reason. what do you think the defense secretary will say? >> good morning, wolf. thank you for having me on. i'm really happy you're asking that. i hope secretary hagel does get asked that question. there's been a rush to condemnation bowe bergdahl and by extension his mom and dad.

with the reality that everything we have seen, those that read the army investigation, what people have come out and said and from afghan witnesses on the ground, it appears that the evidence is not that bowe was deserting and previously left the base because he was crazy, reckless or dumb or going out to fix relations on his own or inspired by the philosophy and wanted to conduct his own missions, we don't know. he left the brace previously and had gone out. he didn't go out with equipment that would make you think he was trying to desert. he didn't take extra food, extra clothing. he didn't take his weapons. when he was abducted, it was a forceful abduction. he put up a violent fight. he was prisoner of war for five years. when i went through our camp, we had all kinds of guys give up and make propaganda videos in

training because it was so difficult. b bowe on his own never made a propaganda video for the taliban. from what i see, there's no renunciation of the united states or renunciation of the u.s. military and clearly no demonstration of a intent of his to desert. >> i want you to stand by. the opening statements have wrapped up and now we'll hear from the defense secretary, chuck hagel. he has an opening statement. that will be followed by questions. republicans and democrats will have a chance to ask the defense secretary questions. here's hagel. >> mr. chairman, thank you, ranking member smith, thank you, and to the members of this committee, i appreciate an opportunity to discuss the recovery of sergeant bowe bergdahl and transfer of five detainees from guantanamo bay to qatar. i appreciate having the

department of defense's general counsel, steve preston, here with me this morning. mr. preston was one of our negotiators throughout this process in qatar and signed on behalf of the united states the memorandum of understanding between the governments of qatar and the united states. also here representing chief joints of staff sitting behind me is pat white, director of the joint staffs pakistan/afghanistan coordination cell. general white helped coordinate the bergdahl recovery on behalf of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. the vice chairman will join us later this morning in the classified closed portion of the hearing. and as you know, general dempsey and the admiral played critical roles in the meetings at the national security council

leading up to sergeant bergdahl's release and supported the decision to move forward with this prisoner exchange. in my statement today, i will address the issues of chairman mechanic keon and mr. smith and explain why it was so urgent to pursue sergeant bergdahl's release. why we decided to move forward with the detainee transfer and why it was consi ifistent with law and our military's core values. mr. chairman, members of this committee, i want to make one fundamental point. i would never sign any document or make any agreement, agree to any decision that i did not feel was in the best interest of this country. nor would the president of the united states who made the final

decision with the full support of his national security team. i recognize that the speed with which we moved in this case has caused great frustration, legitimate questions, and concern. we could have done a better job. could have done a better job of keeping you informed. i urge you to remember two things. this was an extraordinary situation. first, we weren't certain that we would transfer those detainees out of guantanamo until we had sergeant bergdahl in hand. second, we had sergeant bergdahl in hand only a few hours after making the final arrangements. there are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange and congress obviously has an important constitutional role and right and responsibility to play in all of our military and intelligence matters.

as a former member, mr. chairman, of the senate select committee on intelligence and council on foreign relations, i appreciate the vital role congress plays in our national security. i will present to this committee within the limits of an open unclassified hearing and in more detail in the classified hearing everything i can to answer your questions and assure you this committee, the american people, that this prisoner exchange was done legally. it was substantial mitigation of risk to our country and in the national interest of this country. let's start with sergeant bergdahl's status as a member of the united states army. he was held captive by the taliban for almost five years. he was officially listed as missing captured. no charges were ever brought against sergeant bergdahl and there are no charges pending

now. our entire national security apparatus, military, intelligence community and the state department pursued every avenue to recover sergeant bergdahl as the american people and the congress and the congress before you expected us to do. in fact, this committee, this committee knows there were a number of congressional resolutions introduced directing the president of the united states to do everything he could to get sergeant bergdahl released from captivity. we never stopped tried to get him back. congress knows that. he's a soldier in the united states army. questions about sergeant bergdahl's capture as mr. smith noted are separate from our effort to recover him because we do whatever it takes to recover any and every u.s. service member held in captivity. this pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and our military.

as former central commander marine general jim matis put it, we don't leave people behind. that's the beginning and that is the end of what we stand for. we keep faith with the guys who sign on and that is all there is to it. as for the circumstances surrounding his captivity, as will be reviewed later, the army will review. they will review this exchange circumstance, captivity of sergeant bergdahl in a comprehensive coordinated effort that will include speaking with sergeant bergdahl and i think i need not remind anyone on this committee, like any american, sergeant bergdahl has rights. his conduct will be judged on the facts, not political

hearsay, posturing, charges or innuendo. we do owe that to any american and especially those who are members of our military and their families. like most americas, i've been offended and disappointed in how the bergdahl family has been treated by some in this country. no family deserves this. i hope there will be some sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the bergdahl family. in 2011, the obama administration conducted talks with the taliban on a detainee exchange involving the same five taliban detainees that were ultimately transferred after the release of sergeant bergdahl. 2011. these talks, which congress was briefed on, some of you in this room were in those briefings i understand. congress was briefed on in november 2011 and in january of 2012 were broken off by the

taliban in march of 2012. we have not had direct talks with the taliban since this time. in september of 2013, the government of qatar offered to serve as an intermediary and in november of last year, we requested that the taliban provide a new proof of life video of sergeant bergdahl. in january of this year, we received that video and it was disturbing. some of you may have seen the video. it showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. our entire intelligence community carefully analyzed every part of it and concluded that sergeant bergdahl's health was poor and possibly declining. this gave us growing urgency to act. in april of this year after briefly suspending engagement with us, the taliban again

signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. we intensified our discussions with the qatar governent about security assistance and assurances particularly security assurances. on may 12th, we signed a memorandum of understanding with qatar detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced by them if any taliban detainees were transferred to their custody. steve preston as i noted earlier signed that memorandum of understanding on behalf of the united states government and was included in those negotiations. included in this mou were specific risk mitigation measures and commitments from the government of qatar like travel restrictions, monitomoni, information sharing and other

significant measures which we will detail in the closed portion of this hearing. they were described as you know, mr. chairman, in a classified documentation and notification letter i sent to this committee last week. that memorandum of understanding has been sent to the congress, to the leadership, to the committees, and every member of congress has an opportunity to review that memorandum of understanding in a closed session. u.s. officials received a warning -- we received a warning from the qatari intermediaries that time was not on our side and we'll go into more detailed on a classified hearing on those warnings. this indicated the risk to the sergeant bergdahl's safety were growing.

we moved forward on how to carry out that exchange. an exchange of five detainees. agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning on may 27th following three days of intensive talks. that same day, president obama received a personal commitment and personal telephone call to uphold and enforce the security arrangements and a final decision was made to move forward with that exchange on that day. as the opportunity to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release became clear, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay or any leaks could derail the deal and further endanger sergeant bergdahl. we're told by the qataries that any kind of leak would end the negotiation for bergdahl's release. we also knew that he would be

extremely vulnerable during any movement and our military personnel conducting the handoff would be exposed to the possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory that we did not control. and we had been given no information on where the handoff would occur. for all these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently and quietly. we believe the exchange was our last best opportunity to free him. after the exchange was set in motion, only 96 hours passed before sergeant bergdahl was in our hands. throughout this period, there was great uncertainty, great n uncertainty, about whether the deal would go forward. we did not know the general are a area of the handoff until 24

hours before. we didn't know the precise location until one hour before and we did not know until the moment sergeant bergdahl was handed over safely to u.s. special operations forces that the taliban would hold up their end of the deal. so it wasn't until we recovered sergeant bergdahl on may 31st, that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five guantanamo detainees. the president's decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees was a tough call. i supported it. i stand by it. as secretary of defense, i have the authority and responsibility as has been noted here to determine whether detainees -- any detainees but these specific detainees of guantanamo bay can be transferred to the custody of another country. i take that responsibility, mr. chairman, members of this committee, damn seriously. damn seriously. as i do any responsibility i

have in this job. neither i nor any member of the president's national security council were under any illusions about these five detainees. they were members of the taliban, which controlled much of afghanistan prior, all of the territory to america's invasion and overthrow that regime. their enemy taken to guantanamo in 2001 and 2002. they've been in custody at guantanamo since then. 12, 13 years. but they have not been implicated in any attacks against the united states and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission. it was appropriate to continue to consider them for an exchange as we had been over the last few years. as congress had been told that we were. if any of these detainees ever

tried to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. there's also always, always some risk associated with the transfer of detainees from guantanamo. this is not a risk-free business. we get that. the u.s. government has transferred 620 detainees. 620 detainees from guantanamo since may 2002. with 532 transfers occurring during the bush administration and 88 transfers occurring during the obama administration. in the case of these five detainees, the security members qatar put in place led me, as secretary of defense, to determine consistent with national defense authorization act that the risk they posed to the united states, our citizens and our interests were substantially mitigated. i consulted with all of the

members of the president's national security team and asked them as they reviewed all the details, they reviewed the draft of my notification letter and specific line by line word by word details of that letter. i asked for their complete revi reviews, the risks associate and asked concur or object to the transfer. the secretary of state, the attorney general, secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all supported this transfer. all put their names on it. there was complete unanimity on this decision, mr. chairman. the president and i would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully in the national interest and best traditions of our country. our operation to save sergeant

bergdahl's life was fully consistent with u.s. laws and our national security interests in at least five ways. first, we complied with the national defense authorization act of 2014 by determining that the risk of detainees posed to the united states, american citizens and our interests was substantially mitigated. the transfer was in the national security interest of the united states. second, we fulfilled our commitment to recover all military personnel held captive. third, we followed the precedent of past wartime prisoner exchanges. a practice in our country that dates back to the revolutionary war and has occurred in most wars that we fought. fourth, because sergeant bergdahl was a detained combatant being held by an enemy force and not a hostage, it was fully consistent with our long standing policy not to offer

concessions to hostage takers. the taliban is our enemy. we are engaged in an armed conflict with them. fifth, we did what was consistent with previous congressional briefings this administration had provided as i noted in late 2011 and early 2012 reflecting our intent to conduct a transfer of this nature with these particular five individuals. mr. chairman, i fully understand and appreciate the concerns, the questions, about our decision to transfer these five detainees to qatar without providing 30 days notice to congress. but under these exceptional circumstances, a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an american service member held captive and endangered for almost five years. the national security team and the president of the united states agreed that we needed to act swiftly. we were mindful that this was

not simply a detainee transfer but a military operation with very high and complicated risk and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize. both for the sake of sergeant bergdahl and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return. in consultation with the department of justice, the administration concluded a transfer of the five could lawfully proceed. the options available to us to recover sergeant bergdahl were very few. and far from perfect. but they often are in wartime, mr. chairman. and especially in a complicated war like we've been fighting in afghanistan for 13 years. wars are messy. and they're full of imperfect choices. i saw this firsthand during my service in vietnam in 1968.

1968 this committee may recall we sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead in one year. i see it as secretary of defense. a few of you on this committee, a few of you on this committee have experienced war and you've seen it up close. you know there's always suffering. there's no glory in war. war is always about human beings. it's not about machines. war is a dirty business. we don't like to deal with those realities. but realities they are. and we must deal with them. those of us charged with protecting the national security interests of this country are called upon every day to make the hard, tough, imperfect, and sometimes unpleasant choices based on the best information we have and within the limits of our laws. and always based on america's interest. war, every part of war, like

prisoner exchanges, is not some abstraction. the hard choices and options don't fit neatly into clearly defined instructions in how-to manuals. all of these decisions are part of the brutal and imperfect realities we deal with in war. in the decision to rescue sergeant bergdahl, we complied with the law. we did what we believed was in the best interest of our country, our military and sergeant bergdahl. the president has constitutional responsibilities and constitutional authorities to protect american citizens and members of our armed forces. that's what he did. america does not leave its soldiers behind. we made the right decision. we did it for the right reasons. to bring home one of our own people. as all of you know, i value the defense department's partnership with this congress. and the trust we've developed over the years. i know that trust is has been

broken. i know you have questions about that. but i'll tell you something else, i've always been straightforward completely transparent with this committee since i've been secretary of defense. i will continue to do that. i will do that always with all of my relationships and associations and responsibilities to the congress. that's what i always demanded, mr. chairman, of any administration, when i was a member of the united states senate. i've been on your side of this equation. i understand it. that's what i've done this morning. with the statement i have made and i made the decision i did and i explained that in general terms. the circumstances surrounding my decisions were imperfect and these decisions that have to lead to some kind of judgment

always are. the president is in the same position, but you have to make a choice. you have to make a decision. the day after the bergdahl operation at bagram air base in afghanistan, i met with a special team of operators that recovered sergeant bergdahl. they are the best of the best. people who didn't hesitate to put themselves at incredible personal risk to recover one of their own. i know we all thank them. i know this committee thanks them. we appreciate everything that they do. we thank all of our men and women in afghanistan who make the difficult sacrifices every day for this country. earlier this week we were reminded of the heavy cost of war. the heavy cost of war when we lost five american servicemen in

afghanistan. i know our thoughts and our praise are with their families. we're grateful for their service. we're grateful for the service of all our men and women in uniform around the world. as i conclude, mr. chairman, i want to again thank this committee for what you do every day to support our men and women around the world. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to make this statement. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. in your statement, you indicated that the president had made the final decision on this operation. i appreciate you clarifying that. we had a briefing just a couple days ago and the last question asked by a member of congress was who made the final decision and one of the briefers stated that you had made the final decision. i think all of us understand how this place works and a decision

of this nature is always made by the commander in chief. i think that you clarified that and i appreciate that. mr. secretary, one of the things that's bothered me most about this is the fact that we did pass a law last year that stated that congress should be notified 30 days before any transfer of detainees from guantanamo. just a little history. we were briefed, some of us, some of the leadership on this committee and other pertinent committees in congress, starting in november of '11, that there was negotiations that we were entering into negotiations with the taliban looking toward reconciliation at some point. along with that, in that

meeting, there was also mention about potential transfer of detainees as you mention for the release of sergeant bergdahl. that was followed up with another briefing in january and then the taliban set up a headquarters in qatar. president karzai learned of that. everything hit the fan and we were briefed again saying that all of those negotiations have come to a halt. if we start those negotiations again, we will inform you. we never heard another briefing on that matter. and so when we passed that law, we felt that we did it for a good reason.

the law didn't just state that we would be given a notice. it required that the department would provide numerous pieces of critical information including how the risk posed by the detainee had been substantially mitigated. how the transfers and national security interest of the united states, an assessment of the capacity and willingness and past practices of the receiving country along with a notice. along with several other pieces of information. and previous memorandums had that language. we worked out the final language that was passed last year. you know, mr. secretary, i think you have just made a very strong case for the position taken by the president and the administration. you just left one thing out.

these negotiations as we were told in a briefing last week started in january of this year with the tape and with the other things that went forth. i have been told in a couple of different briefings now that somewhere -- i think the final number given to us a couple days ago was somewhere between 80 and 90 people in the department of justice, the state department, the homeland security was one of them and the department of defense knew about this. 80 to 90 people. the only one i know of that was elected was the president and perhaps the vice president. we don't know who those 80 or 90 people were. yet in all that time, the leadership of the house that has the responsibility, a

co-leadership according to the constitution with the president of the united states, was not informed, not told of any of this. if you had or somebody -- i think you have the most credibility, but if you have been able to meet with the responsible people in the congress and give them the same story you just now gave us, the law would have been complied with. we didn't need to know the operational details. we didn't need to know anything of that other than the things that i mentioned that the law states and full compliance with the law would have been met. i don't think we would have pushed back at all and yet when the law is ignored and, you know, we all feel keenly the responsibilities that we have. sometimes more than others. this is one of those times where this is a very important principle. i wish that you or somebody had

sat down with the leadership of the congress including the senate and told us the same things that you just told us in your briefing here. i think it would have gone -- it would have been very helpful in reestablishing or establishing or keeping the trust that we should have between the congress, the president of the united states, the supreme court, all of us trying to work together to the satisfaction of the constitution and the american people that were all sent here to serve. let me just ask one question, secretary hagel. will the department fully cooperate with this committee's inquiry going forward with the detainee exchange including the

recent request that i sent a couple days ago for documents? >> absolutely. yes. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service in the military in uniform, in the senate, and now in this very tough job that you hold. >> thank you. >> mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. two very important parts to this. one is the one the chairman mentioned which i'll get to in a second. the first is the whole notion that we have somehow broken precedent and that in negotiation we negotiated with terrorists in exchange for this and it went against a long standing u.s. policy. that's been the central criticism from the speaker yesterday and i think it's just absolutely wrong given the situation that we were in as you described it. we went to war in afghanistan. sergeant bergdahl was fighting in that war. we were fighting directly against the taliban. for the first couple months,

they were the government. they were knocked out and they kept fighting as an insurgent force. could you walk us through and maybe mr. preston as the lawyer can sort of get into this, how you view this and whether or not this is unprecedented. it doesn't seem to be. there are exchanges as you mentioned just about every war we fought of prisoners. whatever one may think of the taliban, we were fighting a war with them. it was in a battle zone. it was not, you know, a diplomat or a civilian. it was a member of the armed force who is was captured in that battle. do you think that we've set some precedent here for negotiating with terrorists or is this clearly as it is in my mind in a different legal category? >> congressman smith, thank you. as you noted, i alluded to some of this in general terms in my statement. two general comments to respond

and then i'll ask mr. preston as you suggested his thoughts. one, this was an extraordinary situation for the reasons i mentioned in classified briefings that some of you attended and will get more into the extraordinary dynamics when we close this hearing down and go into classified. it was a very unique set of dynamics that we were dealing with. on precedent side of this, i'm not the legal person here. i do occasionally read and i don't think there was any precedent set by this in regards to past wars and how we have always gotten our prisoners back or attempted to get them back, time of war or after war, we can

get into appropriate conversations about who are combatants and who are we at war with and who are terrorists and we have legal definitions for all of those. i said something at the beginning of my testimony here. i know it's imperfect. it plays into the larger scope of what we were dealing and what we are dealing with, still dealing with and will be dealing with not just in afghanistan. you look at yemen. what's going on all over the world. what is unprecedented today is the threats and what we're up against around the world. organized, sophisticated terrorist groups. have we declared war on any of them or how will we define them other than some as terrorist groups, but these are different

dynamics in unprecedented situations this country has never had to deal with before. i'll make one last comment and then ask mr. preston for his legal opinion on your question. you all have major responsibilities. we each in government have major responsibilities. i have the responsibility of getting up every morning. i've got one responsibility. that's the security of this country. that's what i'm charged with. that's what the president asked me to do. the senate confirmed me to do that. i agreed to do it. i took an oath of office. we all take the same oath of office. as to the constitution and security of this country. that's my primary focus every day. you all have your focuses. not too dissimilar from mine either on some of these things. i just happen to have a more narrow gauge in what i do. the president of the united states has the ultimate responsibility for security of this country.

i remind us of all of this. it's imperfect. it may sound like an excuse but it's not an excuse. it's reality. i'll ask mr. preston. >> thank you. there's, of course, a good deal of detail, technical legal detail in what constitutes a p.o.w. versus detained combbat t combatant. what we had here were detained combatants held by opposing forces in the same armed conflict. as such, this exchange falls within the tradition of prisoner exchanges between opposing forces in time of war. now, it is true that the taliban is not the conventional nation state that has been party to conventional armed conflict in

the past. it's not the character of the holding party. it's the character of the detainee that inspires and motivates our commitment to the recovery of service members held abroad. we don't see this as setting a particular precedent because it does fall within that tradition of prisoner exchanges and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstate actors who are holding service members in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot michael durant in somalia who was held captive by the warlord and there was a quiet, as i understand it, arrangement whereby the united states regained durant's freedom

and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> i just want to say again, i think any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists misses the fact that we were and are at war and sergeant bergdahl was a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end of 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities and assuming that there was an end of hostilities they would have had to be released? is that the department's opinion or undecided or do they feel the opposite? >> the way i would answer that is to say that we believe we have under domestic law, specifically the aumf and under international law, principles of the law of armed conflict, that we have authority to hold and

had the authority to hold these five at guantanamo as enemy belligerents. there will come a point in time where armed conflicts we're engaged in come to an end. at that point the law of war rationale for continuing to hold these unprivileged would -- >> it's not just the war in afghanistan. it's the broader battle as defined under aumf. >> the further point i would make is i'm not aware of any determination as yet that with the cessation of the current combat mission at the end of this year that the armed conflicts are determined to be

over such it would trigger consequences that we've been discussing. >> thank you. the last thing i'll say and no need to respond to this but i'll just reemphasize a point the chairman made and a point i made in my opening statement. it would be oh so more helpful -- the department of defense in my experience has been good about consulting with us and working with this body. it's not really about that. the white house on the other hand has not been very good about keeping in touch with congress, working with us, consulting with us on major policy issues. it's hit or miss. if we could do better at that, it would make my job a whole lot easier if we could just trust congress a little bit and have those consultations before policy decisions are finalized. i think it would make this entire town work better than it is right now. i yield back. >> there are two things i need clarified. did you, mr. preston, say that

at some point conflict would end and then we would release these people or we would have to release them and no reason to hold them and that conflict is ending in december of this year? >> the point was when the armed conflict ends, the international law basis for continuing to hold people who are being held on the basis of their membership -- >> i'm sorry, mr. preston. you have to point out which armed conflict you're talking about. your answer was not the armed conflict in afghanistan. it was the one as defined under aumf as long as we're fighting al qaeda and their associated sources is the armed conflict you were talking about being over and not afghanistan. that's the point of the chairman's question. >> the point is we're currently in armed conflict with the taliban and with al qaeda. at some point, the armed

conflict with the taliban ends. at that point, for those detainees that are being held as enemy belligerents against our enemy, the taliban, unless there is an additional basis for holding them, we would no longer have that international law basis for holding them. it's been suggested that taliban may also be candidates to be held as associates of al qaeda as the conflict with al qaeda continues. >> the point mr. smith made is this conflict may not end in december just because the majority of our troops are pulled out. >> that is my understanding as well, sir. >> we thought the conflict was over in iraq and we see that it is not. that it