killed in afghanistan. the tenant maker's wife hosted a luncheon for us. darryn wass how killed. they were on a mission to find a high interest taliban. room to maneuver was limited. and wascle hit an ied disabled. assess thet to damage. the enemy combatant stepped from behind the wall and fire an rpg. darryn took a direct hit from the rpg. the other soldier received some damage to his ears. the private survived and was airlifted to germany, but died a

few days later. on february of 2010, the second lieutenant was awarded the silver star for his/her road actions. , it wasme during this not mentioned that he was searching for bergdahl. only a high interest taliban. when bergdahl was portray as serving with honor, he soldiers who were there contacted my wife to make sure they understood what a hero was. walking awaydahl's was a factor in darryn's death. if you want to know what happened, ask the listed people. listed people can't tell you exactly what happened. that bergdahlmony walked away.

he was killed while looking for him. >> thank you, mr. andrews. the committee will now hear from the specialist. >> ranking members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share the first-hand account of my experiences serving in afghanistan. one of the things that i , hegnize about bergdahl was always asking questions. he blended in when he needed to be. he was in the right place at the right time, right uniform. we train for an upcoming deployment to afghanistan. during this time, myself nor anybody i had spoken with could remember bergdahl walking off the base. this story has been repeated over and over again. i have no idea why. it did not happen. in march of 2009, our brigade deployed to afghanistan. bergdahl did not make the

deployment with us. he got a staph infection. we were tasked with building and observation post. while we were there, we were on the front line, digging holes for bunkers, filling sandbags, hanging wire. told we could take some items of clothing off to keep us from having heatstroke. security was always in place are. this has been used against us. saying that we were a band of outlaws. leaders were reprimanded for that i'm somebody higher up. we in the platoon felt that it was without merit. after arriving in afghanistan, it did not take long bergdahl to start voicing his disagreements as to the way our missions we were being led.

he did not understand why we were doing more humanitarian missions than hunting the taliban and. he was told that these are our orders and we will follow them. before we went out the day of june 30, 2009 about a week before we were told we would go to this observation post. during this time, bergdahl mailed his items home. he did not know this until after we got back after he deserted his equipmenthat had been mailed home. on the morning of june 30, 100% accountability was held at about 6:00 a.m. everybody was good on proper number of men and equipment except for alpha team. the team members immediately started searching the observation post. we looked under truck's,

everywhere you can think. bergdahl was nowhere to be found. we found his gun, ammo and plate carrier. the trolls were sent out to see bergdahl. some smallo children, they had seen somebody descriptiongdahl's crawling low on the ground. a schoolteacher had seen the same thing. we heard from our interpreter at the american who was walking around looking for somebody that spoke english and water also wanted to seek out the taliban. that was from the interpreter speaking directly to us. after bergdahl was found that he walked off, we got the status on whereabouts unknown. every asset in afghanistan was pushed to his effort. after bergdahl's shipping his items home and seeing him

crawling and asking for the allban and odd questions helped us connect the dots later. time, it seemed like normal off the wall jarden. the faxed only that the bergdahl desertion was premeditated. how long he had planned this, i do not know. it was clear that he had a planned and executed it very countless people put their lives on the line for his. combat is difficult. the only thing you can count on is the commitment of your fellow american. he did so on his own free will. now that bergdahl is back in the united states, an investigation needs to take place on why he left us. all documents need to come to public view. american state to see the investigation on the desertion.

to desert not be able your fellow americans without consequences. bowe bergdahl should not be characterized as serving with honor and distinction. has deserted us, he would not have been held in captivity. in my opinion, bergdahl needs to be charged with desertion, disrespect for his officer, failure to obey order of regulation, and misconduct as prisoner. thank you. >> thank you. your testimony for five minutes, please. max madam chairman, ranking members, thank you for holding this hearing on the subject of national importance. i want to take a moment to pay tribute to the family members of the thousands that have served their country. at the end of the day, we

volunteered. the families have to deal with the consequences of our service. command the2009, i special forces company responsible for operations in eastern afghanistan. that is where private bergdahl went missing. two of our special teams searched and afghan compound where we had indication that bergdahl might be held. this marked the beginning of several weeks of michigan -- visions into some of the most hostile areas of afghanistan. we received orders to halt all ongoing missions and initiatives. devote allered to resources and energy to the service -- search for bergdahl. it became apparent that the

taliban knew that we were conducting a search for him. occasions, i men were the word into ambushes including an afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb that was primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps. fortunately, the bombs were -- failed to explode. other soldiers were not so fortunate. all of us understood at the time off hisgdahl had walked post into a local afghan village. we knew we had to do what ever it took to find him. that was fine. furious andn were resentful that a fellow american soldier and put us in this position. it violated the most fundamental s of being aho soldier and a soldier's creed. i will leave his motives and state of mind to my colleagues

who knew him personally. i will say that bowe bergdahl endanger the lives of thousands of men. fromed scarce resources other units that desperately needed those assets. hetingly or unwittingly, handed our enemies a significant topic and a tool that they repeatedly used in videos to denounce the united states and recruit for their cause. we all know we -- he handed the taliban leadership a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively use to free five of their leaders. i want to take a moment, i think it is important to put the in the of these men context of our broader policy in afghanistan. williams of afghans voted in the runoff elections on saturday. they are in the midst of one of the most sensitive political

transitions in their history. there are still significant russians on whether or not they will receipt -- succeed. every afghan i have talked to are stunned that they would be released back into their society. these were household names, particularly to women and minorities who were slaughtered. it was the timing of this release that has these groups perplexed. we spent the last year dueling president karzai to sign a long-term agreement with us. both of the candidates to replace karzai and the candid that they would sign it. the president announced for withdrawal of u.s. forces by the end of 2016. then we restocked the taliban war cabinet. what is going to happen a year from now? a year in that part of the world

is the blink of an eye. able have long memories and a long view towards their objectives. one can understand the confusion and trepidation of it even the most ardent supporters of the strong afghan-u.s. relationship. where is that going forward? it is one of hope and assumption. we are assuming that the afghan army can hold it's ground. we are assuming that there will be no ethnic violence as part of the transition. are importantly, we assuming that al qaeda cannot reconstitute. i would be viewed with a word of caution. if that scares us, and what is going on in iraq and syria should, what will happen when we are dealing with a nuclear arsenal in pakistan? i am happy to answer questions on future gitmo releases.

with that, i am out of time. >> dr. jacobson, five minutes please. >> ranking members and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. extend my congratulations to the andrews family for the sacrifice they have made during i would like to have met their son. aom what i have read, he is true hero. i am glad to sit beside my friend mike waltz who is a true hero. tank you for your services as well. as someone who served in the oftagon in 2001, the threat terrorism is not lost on me. i made the decision years before two devote myself to my nation. i spent several years in afghanistan as a naval

intelligence officer and later as a civilian adviser. i am acutely aware of the danger that remains in afghanistan. , it is four of us personal and we feel the impact in a way that many americans do not. by taking this out, these men and women may be selfless decision to put their country first. theymay -- they know that may be giving that last measure of devotion to give their lives to their families, their comrades, and their nation. in exchange for that, the military makes its own promise. the commitment is simple. behind, non or woman exceptions. his commitment is unequivocal, regardless of the circumstances of the capture. this is something that we owe to

all those that have served, do serve and will serve. that is why i believe securing 's capture wasahl important. if he did it act inappropriately, it was all the more important that he be brought home to answer for his actions. there is always risk releasing detainees. the potential risk for the administration are no greater than during the previous administration when 532 prisoners were released from guantanamo bay. our concerns.er as outlined by secretary defends hegel, the qatari government has put on traffic restrictions and monitoring. there is not consensus that these individuals will return to

the battlefield. if they do, the afghanistan of honey 14 is not the afghanistan of 2001. cast in twoallots separate elections in open defiance of the taliban. especially since they have been off the battlefield for over a decade. some would question whether the would prisoner exchange endanger u.s. personnel. while the exchange took place before the end of the war in afghanistan and we have conducted prisoner exchanges before the ends of hostilities with the korean war. with the threat to kidnapping by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in afghanistan. it was my number one threat when i served in uniform. there is no reason to think that this calculus will be changed.

the united states has been negotiating with the taliban and her some time now. a recognition that the war in afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. i understand what we feel about the stories coming out about bowe bergdahl. if i were them, i might feel the same way. the truth is that we do not yet know the whole truth. and our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. people are innocent until proven guilty. there must be a thorough investigation. it must be allowed to take place without politics and partisanship. we may not like it. in the end, foreign affairs and national security policy are about finding the least worst approach. sergeantion to obtain

bergdahl was not perfect, but it was the right one. we never leave our soldiers behind. >> thank you all for your testimony. i will go to questions by the individual members. there are several issues that have come to light during this hearing. the first one is sergeant bergdahl, who is he and why did he leave his post and what is going to happen in the future? of those who look for him, what will happen to them? what do we tell those who lost sons looking for him? there is the issue, do we negotiate with terrorists or do we not negotiate with terrorists? what is the foreign policy of the united states? , or ass the taliban five

he called them, the taliban and war cabinet. who are these folks and why are they in gitmo in the first place and what are they going to do in the future? i will start with you. what did the army tell you about the way your son was killed. turn on the mic please. >> they said that they were searching for a high-ranking taliban and had gone to this him.r to search for this was in the silver star accommodation. they had so many problems on the road. instead of coming from the south, they went to the north. >> they told you that your son was looking for a taliban commander. >> bergdahl was not mentioned.

>> when did you learn that was not true? >> last saturday. >> were you ever instructed by the u.s. army to sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell anybody what you were told by the army? i was not. the soldiers who contacted my wife were asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement. you are obviously very passionate about your testimony. were members of the united states member -- military killed looking for bowe bergdahl. >> i don't know. what i do know is that we were told that we would not be in certain areas before he went and deserted us. thosehad not deserted us, people would not have been in those places where they were killed. they would have been somewhere

else. it would have been in a different section of afghanistan. do not knowman, i of anyone who can draw a direct line. to the best of my knowledge, unit, it is especially in the province where the specialist was located, who are dedicated to that search. somebody was killed during that amount of time. unless they tripped on the way to the mess hall, they were looking for sergeant bergdahl. cabinet,liban and war you demonstrated a lot of concern about who these guys are. has the united nations indicted one of them for war crimes. who are these people? americans do not know who these five folks are.

>> we have released the taliban's deputy member of defense, a senior operative in their intelligence service that was responsible for migrating intelligence tactics over to the taliban. we have the former taliban and was of harat responsible for liaising with the iranian government. we lease -- we released the gentleman wanted for war crimes for massacring thousands of the ethnic minority which are shia. sectarianook at the violence going on across the middle east, i would not call that a wise move. the question that i cannot get answered is why did the taliban picked those five? of all of the spectrum of folks that they could have picked, why did they -- why did we give them

their top five draft picks? >> i understand in the agreement tar is supposed to supervisor them. the supervision or house arrest is just for one year. .> that is my understanding some of the details of what they can or cannot do and the next year is moot. the fact is that it is only for a year. >> we have heard this through the media. a lady in texas was told that the united states does not negotiate with terrorists. her son was later killed in the algerian attack. have ae united states policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists or do we not? >> i do not believe that the an examplechange is of negotiating with terrorists. of prisoners is

something we have historically seen towards the end of a war. >> the gentleman from california, five minutes. but let me put to rest this absurd argument that these taliban prisoners would have had to have been released when we 2014 upd operations in or when we were down to a couple of hundred trainers in 2016. the general counsel of the department of defense testified continue toe would have the legal right to hold taliban prisoners, not just with the conclusion of war and death dennis stand, but until the broader battle defined under the had concluded. we will continue to have them for many years. the taliban and the soldiers

will try to kill those trainers. the laws of wars do not require us to augment the forces trying to wage war against our trainers or against the afghan government. we are at war with the taliban until they are at war against the united states or as long as the taliban is waging war against the united states. i have a number of questions. i hope you will be able to answer them very so simply. we are told that some of these five released are wanted by the u.n. for war crimes. have a process where anybody can be wanted for war crimes. do they have the process to indict anybody? unclear on how that came into some of the dod documents.

legends are many urban in foreign policy. are any of these five under indictment from the international criminal court or any recognized body of four kisses on war crimes? >> -- body that focuses on war crimes? i did ask you to research this. >> what is important is understanding this context. dangerous,iduals are but they're not going back to that same battlefield. .> i have a very limited time i want to go to something else. the question arises about whether continuing patrols should have been made to retrieve sergeant bergdahl. mitch republican leader mcconnell all with h republican members of the house at a time

when we already knew the mysterious circumstances of bergdahl's departure and that was widely published put together a resolution that abandoning search efforts for members of the armed forces is unacceptable. at the time, there was only one member of our armed services missing or captured. embers of the house and senate knew that those additional patrols would be dangerous for our armed forces. to whetherint out as this deal is a good deal, it was knew theccain who parameters of this deal. it was these five for one named bergdahl. the worst -- these were published on the front page of the washington post. senator mccain said that he was

for the deal if the details were correct. they be the details do not meet his specifications. we are told that it is somehow news that we have revealed to the taliban that we care about our prisoners. the only democracy to have soldiers captured in the middle east is israel. dr. jacobson, what were the israelis willing to do to get back sergeant major? i am aware of is that at times the israelis exchanged over 1000 prisoners for one individual. they have exchange prisoners for the remains of their fallen. >> anybody observing the practices of democracy would

reach the conclusion that if you can capture somebody, democracies have a particular need to get that person back and are willing to make extraordinary concessions, sometimes 1000-1. >> i do not think that anybody would disagree with the point that our democracy cares about the people left behind. >> their battlefield experiences from 2001, with the tactics that they are familiar with near as good as the tactics used by the taliban today? >> unfortunately, in my opinion, the insurgents in afghanistan have evolved tremendously in terms of their tactics. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you for being here. we are going with the idea to point out everyone who ever said

anything about releasing this person. i would be remiss if i did not make a bigger point on the afghanistan issue. the president announced that in americanf 2017, all troops would be out of afghanistan. of whata precursor could happen. specificere for the issues. i want to thank all of you for being here. question for the specialists. when you were in training and you heard the idea that your country would never leave you behind, it is something that as members of the armed forces we take seriously. what was your understanding of your country will never leave you behind mean? what is that guarantee in your mind? is that that they will release

five or 1000 terrorists to get you back? what did that mean to you? >> that meant that i put my nation first when i volunteered to serve the united states army in a time of war. why putting them first, they would put me first to a certain extent. by hearing that we should leave no man behind because we could trade with another nation, the taliban is not a nation. helds the nation that bergdahl. was leavei heard, it no honorable man behind. not know leave man behind. >> people you served with, i will ask the four of you, you can expand on this. do you believe that the release from the taliban and

and the subsequent video they put out has to have some meaning showing the helicopter leaving and withdrawing from the area. do you believe that was a propaganda victory or a propaganda defeat? what do you think that does to the heart of the soldier that saw this happened? >> it is a victory for the taliban and and the network. they traded one for five. simple math. >> do you think that this will help or hurt the effort to recruit people to kill americans and those who put their lives on the line to build a strong country. >> i assume it will help them and not hurt them. >> from what i can see, it is a victory propaganda-wise for the taliban. they won. that is what it looks like when you see the footage.

i think it benefits the taliban greatly. i think it was the soldiers more in danger of being captured. forre-wards are more getting one and trading them. if you could just respond with yes or no. >> the leader of the taliban considered it a victory. as soon as he received his five top commanders back. trust him. want to it pales by comparison to the video that would have taken place with one of our soldiers eating beheaded. >> that is an interesting twist. you do not trust this guy. him saying that it was a bit or he for his organization was probably a lie. that is surprising to me. if it was not a victory for

them, a probably would not have said anything. they probably would have been very quiet about it. you have a right to your opinion. that was an interesting take that the other three do not share. specialist, do you believe he intentionally left his post. you have a sense as to why he might have intentionally left? >> i believe he left without a in an houreft with or two that he had deserted. i do not know why he did it. he had a plan. it was premeditated. why would you ship all of your items home in the middle of a deployment? with the e-mails and other questions he asked us, he deserted, without a doubt. folks are saying that we need to wait to have this did .ou get -- adjudicated in court

the reality is that we know that sergeant bergdahl left his post. was he a full mental state? that is yet to be determined. there are a lot of people who had mental challenges that still do not leave their brothers and sisters the hind in combat. i thank the witnesses and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. wasergeant bergdahl designated missing and captured, correct? >> my understanding is that he was designated a missing prisoner of war. that is why he was promoted in absentia. benefits. number of >> how was that determination made? >> that determination is made by the department of defense.

my understanding is the same as mike's. understand,ess -- i as i said in my opening comments and has been confirmed by my colleagues, some of them know what happened. they have reached a conclusion. we are told., what did the military do to reach the same conclusion? what steps did the military take to determine if somebody that is missing has actually deserted? key point is what the military has done to date has been an initial and then complete. they have not done an investigation. i am not sure how one could draw a whole conclusion as to what happened. >> do you have any further insight?

for what i a easy lot of elected officials say. he is a deserter and we apparently should not have made this deal. what has the military done to reach that same conclusion? understanding is that the type of investigation, what conducted by a number of folks that were there. the reason that investigation was not closed is that they wanted to interview the subject at hand who was obviously missing. >> if that investigation continues, what could they learn in that investigation? >> from what i have seen so far, a great deal has come out. we have seen information come out that sergeant bergdahl tried to escape several times which forced his captors to put him in isolation. we have seen facts about his

prior enlistment in the coast guard. i have walked away with more questions about what i have seen so far. what type of person was sergeant bergdahl? exactlystions, which is why there needs to be a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his capture. what happens if my colleagues are wrong? what happens if the military and pleads its investigation and determines any one of 1000 different things happened and sergeant bergdahl was in fact missing and a prisoner of war, not a deserter? can you speak to that? >> we might have some other comments. i concern is that if we look back at what happened to any of our prisoners of war during the

korean war and vietnam war, many were accused of collaboration. senator mccain was at the forefront of sealing those records until proper investigations can be done. our enemies want us to think that certain things happen. i am not saying that this happened during the bergdahl case. do not accuse those who did not do anything wrong. >> if the military conducts a full investigation and determines that sergeant deserter, what is the penalty for that? me, there is some debate about whether this is officially a war, that could be punished by death. jhere are various forms of ucm

punishment that are less than that. there has been a lot of discussion about rush to judgment. i know that the specialist would have acted differently if this had been handled appropriately in the first few days after his release with the accusations of hero and serving with distinction and what have you. >> in all sincerity, i am glad you made that comment. i would finish with this last question. a whole level of punishments under military justice. is one of those punishments sub country -- subcontracting out to the telamon to decide how to punish someone? >> you may answer the questions yes or no if you can. >> i am not sure i understand the question. >> the gentleman does yield back

his time. recognize the gentleman from arkansas for five minutes. >> mr. and mrs. andrews, i am deeply sorry for your loss. for the record i would like to corroborate what the specialists have said about the circumstances in afghanistan. i was in the province there, we saw the diversion of air assets to search for private bergdahl. second, i'd also like to stipulate for the record that f there were no doubt sergeant bergdahl had been captured on the field of battle heroically trying to save his fellow soldiers, i would still think five taliban commanders for him was a bad idea.

of course he deserves his day in court, according to his chain of command without unlawful command influence from this president offer -- or any civilian leaders in the pentagon. khalid shaikh for private bergdahl? >> that wasn't -- >> reclaiming reply time. it's a simple yes or no question. >> i don't think it's a yes or no. >> i gather you realize you cannot answer it. tony blanken said he would not. so i guess that means under those circumstances the president would have been leaving private bergdahl behind. now moving to special cyst scol. were you on the same team? >> same team. >> so down to the lowest level. that's a four-man fire team?

>> we were one man short. >> so a three-man team. were you the -- his leader? >> no, i was not. >> you would have been the closest one seeing him in act -- action day after day after day. >> yes. >> i have heard numerous reports that private bergdahl sought out afghanistan friends, civilians, i saw that many imes, maybe innocently interacting with children or dining with civilians on the base. is that something you saw? >> yes. >> you testified that eau they and teacher said were looking for an american -- a taliban commander who spoke english.

is it curious to you that he would not ask them where the taliban is rather than hide out with them? >> i'm not sure i understand you question. >> if private bergdahl left his post as you said to maybe wander across to independent yar, do you think it's curious he would be asking where the taliban is rather than just hanging out with his friends? >> yes. >> and what is the established order tore for conducting any particular task? in the mission after private bergdahl's a -- disappearance did it apear that the afghanistan enemy had greater knowledge of your movements suches ar -- where you parked? >> i don't know if he had greater knowledge after he did disappear. i don't know if another player moved into the area but yeah, after he disappeared theam

ushes -- the ambushes picked up. the i.e.d.'s were moved in different directions and instead of taking a fire -- tire or front end off a vehicle they were hitting direct hits. >> that would be consistent with private bergdahl being held in captivity and breaking under interrogateation and sharing those t.t.p.'s, correct? >> i don't know. i wasn't there. i don't know what he told them. i wasn't there. >> could also be consistent with the fact that he willingly shared those t.p.p.'s, correct? >> like i said, i don't know. i wasn't there. >> when you were conducting searches in the weeks and months did any of your troop or the company commander raise the possible that private bergdahl might be a risk himself if he were found on the battlefield?

>> i think our main focus was just to find him and get him back. that was our main focus from the time he left to about two and a half months later. every day, trying to find this guy. >> were you asked to skine -- sign a nondisclosure? >> i was asked to sign a media gag order. others were -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will recognize the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jacobsen, obviously we've heard testimony today and there have been reports of some unusual behavior attributed to sergeant berled -- bergdahl. and obviously our great american soldiers overwhelmingly are able to sustain the stresses and difficulties of combat without exhibiting unusual behaviors that have been described both during this hearing and in the

media. is there a system or process in place to evaluate the behavior of a soldier to make a determination as to whether or not it's related to the combat operations or realitied -- related to his or her service? >> congressman, speaking from my own experience, there were, the first line of dfls when you have a soldier who is a problem is their chain of command. that could include their n.c.o.'s and the officers above them. during my time in afghanistan there was a great deal of effort expended to make sure there were prevent isk mental health clinics where the sonings could go. i cannot speak to any of this with regards to bergdahl. >> but there is a system in place to monitor members of the armed forces to ensure that we're understanding the impak of being in combat and the stresses of their service? >> that's reply understanding, especially over the last decade.

>> and in addition to that, one of the reasons -- there is a process to conduct a hearing and and investigation -- investigation and a review of those facts to make a determine augs as to whether or not someone has deserted or something else is going on, is that right? >> absolutely. >> and there is a process that will happen in this case as it relates to this individual? >> if fact -- in fact the department of defense announced this week there with doctor will be a two-star general leading the investigation. we've heard the chief of staff say there will be a full investigation. that was echoed by general martin dempsey. >> in addition we have this other principle that, about ensuring we leave no soldier behind. it's part of the soldier's creed or ethos, a deeply held american belief and practice that we leave no soldier behind and do everything we can to secure the release of every

american caught in time of war, correct? >> that is something that i believe in. that is something that i think that even if you don't like the circumstances of someone being captured, you believe it's necessary to good get them. >> so why wouldn't we do this hearing, investigation, all the kinds of things that are going to happen now before we secure the release of an american? couldn't we do it that way? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. >> my point is we can't conduct an investigation, the kind of investigation that is required and is underway prior to securing the release of the prisoner of war in most instances? >> i think that would be very difficult because you want to interview the individual captured. that's why, as i said before, there was an initial investigation that was by definition incomplete. >> and so it makes sense, then that we do everything we can to

release every american prisoner of war and if in fact an investigation proves that they've done something improper or engaged in misconduct they will be confidence are punished in an appropriate pray -- way d in fact if this individual is found to have deserted under the uniform military code of justice he could face up to a death zens? >> yes. i understand that death is a possible punishment. the last american deserter prosecuted -- prosecuted, he had left his post in korea and when he came back to the united states in the 20 off-2008 time frame he was court martialed, given 28 days of confinement and a dishonorable discharge. that's a range. after a trial and charges are referred. >> and what do you think the impact would be on our american

military if our men and women did not know that this country was committed to securing their release and undertaking every imaginable effort to bring them home. >> i think first that that would shatter the bonds of trust between the soldiers and the american people, the chain of command. secondly i think it could be an ormous propaganda coup for our enemies. it would signal in many ways that we no longer are committed to our men and women in uniform. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cook. colonel cook for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. andrews, i know it's tough to be here. as somebody that's been in combat. the second hardest duty, i don't know. probably the hardest duty is to

actually go up to the parents or the spouses and to tell them that their son or daughter is no longer with them. that is very if you have, and everything you've gone through, you have my heartfelt condolences. specialist, if you could bear with me, some of the questions, i understand that his weapon was left behind some >> that's correct. >> all of his ammunition? >> ammunition, his nice vision, all sensitive items were left behind. a couple days before that he had asked another platoon member had asked -- what would happen if his sensitive items went missing. that soldier respond yes and bergdahl pleft all his behind. >> did he have access to radios? >> -- radio frequency is? >> he would but he didn't have a radio with him. standard procedure, when this

happens, you change your radio feck -- frequency. >> ok. any maps or g.p.s. systems at all that went with him? or all left behind? >> i don't know if he had a map on him but a g.p.s. would be sensitive equipment. he didn't have that. >> there's been a lot of talk about desertion and everything else. correct me if i'm wrong, desertion is pretty much an add min term because one of the elements you have to prove is permanent desertion. all the instances i had, i was a legal officer whether i came back, normally just unauthorized absence is one of the charges. because you have to prove permanent desertion from the unit. am i correct or incorrect on that. >> that's correct. awol also turns into desertion after 30 days. >> administratively. but once they turn themselves in or what have you, that turns

into -- ok, a couple of things in terms of just trust in the unit. i get the impression that the unit itself, and i really believe in the code of conduct, i believe in taking care of everybody in the unit. and to give your life for somebody, like that. but i get feeling that you lost full trust and confidence in that individual that he would be on your right flank or your left flank. in other words -- >> as far as the rest of the platoon? >> no. you, and if you had any opinions what the feeling of the rest of the ploot -- platoon was. >> well, the rest. platoon, we were brothers. none of of the rest of us walked off of our own free will. >> no, but -- >> he never would have walked off, he never would have been in captivity. the rest of us fought for the guy to our left and our right

and front and back. i don't know how he felt about us, but we all felt strongly we would give our lives for him. >> ok. in terms of the taliban, and i'm not going to go into the surprise that we weren't otified but the just the impact on a combot -- combat suddenly, g that fibe of their top leaders, five of the ones that killed americans and are involved in terrorism, are released, what kind of psychological effect would that have on the unit aside from bergdahl? >> well, if my high-ranking members were released back to me i would feel pretty good about getting my guys back, personally. >> i understand that. but from the standpoint that the taliban, basically the enemy that you are trying to

track down and finding everything else, the impact that hey, they're back there calling the shots, would have that a demoralizing impact on the unit if you were still with that unit? >> oh, no. american forces are going to do whatever they can every single day, do what they're supposed to do. i don't think they're really worried about anybody else. >> ok. mr. wallace, in materials of permanent impact on policy, we set a precedent by doing this in regards to all the other terrorist groups? >> i believe we have, congressman. i believe we've set a dangerous precedent and i would encourage this body to look closely at future efforts to release and to close guantanamo. we have these men and women detained. people gave their lives to detain them and unfortunately i believe men and women will give their lives to detain or

capture them again. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. vargas for five minutes >> thank you very much. i want to add my condolences too, to the andrews family, sir, to yourself and your wife and i hope that the chemotherapy we heard about a little while ago is successful, sir. your son very obviously was a hero and thank god for him. specialist fuld, i want to thank you also. i want to ask you a -- you a bit, earlier everyone was thanked for their service except for you. do you remember that? >> i heard a lot of thanks for service. >> what was your service? because at one point everyone was thanked except for you. i thought you were in uniform for a while, too. >> i did. served enlisted in the u.s. army reserve 1993 through 2001

with service in it bosnia and took then a compligs as a u.s. army intelligence officer and continue to serve in the reserve today. >> i thought so. i just wanted to make sure and thank you also for your service. thank you. >> you're welcome, congressman. >> obviously the issue here is the principle of do we exchange, do we negotiate, do we leave people behind? obviously we've read a lot about what the politicians say. i was going to read from the congressional record because it's interesting what politicians say when it's beneficial to them and lots of interesting things said both sides but i would like to know what the military thinks about this. you seem to have a good ear to what the joint chiefs and others are saying. what do they say about this deal? are they criticizing it? have they been favorable of it? do you know what the joint chiefs have said or what they

believe? >> congressman, obviously many of our -- we have civilian oversighted of the military and our most senior leaders are supportive of this policy. i can tell you from the rank and file anecdote alli there are -- that are reaching out to me, they're just as furious and resentful as we were at the time. i think if things had been handled differently, if there had been a quiet reunion with the family, not the rush to call him a hero who served with distinction, you would have a very different reaction. >> i was very curious what i listened to you, and i don't want to put words in my mouth, but that we were out there looking for him and we should have, though we resented it. it sounded like you thought you were doing what we should have done >> that the rise -- that's

right. i think what's debateded and controversial is one, his treatment when it was announced and enthen, two, the bryce we paid. i personally believe the price was too high. some draw it at shaikh muhammad. i draw it at the five members of the taliban that were requested to come back. >> thank you, sir, for your testimony. i'm going to ask you the same question. what about that notion? were -- where are the joint chiefs on this? are they against it? in favor of it? would you comment on that? >> i could only refer back to the serving military and the leadership by the public statements made by dempsey and others. but two of my personal heroes general retired, matusz and mcchrystal, have

steady in their opinions. there are a lot of things in the military that soldiers, sailors, marines, are happy to do. spoken to individuals who are actually very content with this and didn't have a problem with it but i would find it strange -- strange if there was any less disagreement over how much one enjoyed this or whether or not they should have done it, i'd be very surprised if there wasn't that disagreement in the military. it seems like no spoken to is disagreeing with the principle that we should get this guy. it's just how it was handled. saying he was a hero, giving the rose garden deal and all that. it doesn't seem like the principle is one that mr. waltz or mr. -- correct me if i'm wrong. it sounds like the principle is

one you agree with. >> it's the principle and the price we paid and i would argue we'll have to pay again to deal with these gentlemen in the future. >> and congressman, i think that it was a good price and this was worth the risk to get sergeant bergdahl back home. >> thank you, mr. chairman. recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. desantos, for five minutes. >> thank you. doctor, you had taken issue said . waltz when he -- great. h thought it was do you disagreeing with honestly think they thought beheading bergdahl would have got them back, they would so done it? i thought the comment was just, it struck me as totally off base. let me ask you this. do we have troops in

afghanistan right now? >> yes, congressman the >> so you had referenced troops who have been left behind. we can argue whether bergdahl left his unit behind and i agree with specialist fuld, i think he did that. everyone that served with him said that. but if we still have troops there, who have we left behind? we're still fighting the conflict is not over yet. so the notion that we have left him behind sutter nonsense. what we've done is replenished the enemy in wartime when we still have fighters in there and they'll still be back on the battlefield. even if you believe this cut ar qtar year, they'll be back the and i would refer to people like my colleague sam

johnson, a medal of honor winner, one of the most respected men in this body, prisoner of war, he said absolutely not, this should not have been done and when he was a prisoner of war he would not have wanted to go back if it meant harming the security interests of his country. i've talked to p.o.w.'s, former , in my district. they say the same thing. mr. andrews, did your son darren goat -- getd honored at the white house for your service? >> no, sir. invited to ever the rose garden? >> no, sixers -- sir. >> and i think a lot of oldiers had a visceral reaction to it. take attention

away from the taliban five. they had to inflate his service in order to try to do that so it was an attempt at deception of the public and i think it struck a lot of folks -- me as a veteran and a lot of folks in my district were very, very upset about that. let me ask you this. the amy lied to you, basically about how your son died, correct? >> they at the very best didn't tell the whole story. >> knowing that, do you have confidence with that bergdahl matter? we hear oh, we got to let the military decide. do you have confidence that they're going to do an investigation that's impartial and adequate? >> my personal feeling is if they let the military do it and leave the politics out of it, i think they will do it. >> do you think if there is a high-ranking flag or general officer whose career could be impacted by -- >> that's putting politics back

in it. >> i think unfortunately once you get up to that level -- i'm a former jag prosecutor. so i'm worried about how it's working out. specialist fuld do you think bergdahl deserves a honorable discharge from the army? >> no, i do not. it's a slap in the face to all those who didn't desert and served honorably. >> if this case goes the other way and he's not actually found guilty at a court martial, is it your understanding he would pay n entitled to back for all the years that he was gone? >> yeah, he would be entitled to back pay which i think is around $30,000, college benefits, pay r all the years v.a. health ce benefits, everything a veteran gets with honorable discharge. >> so you think that given what happened, you know, if you were

advising the prosecutors what to ask for the penalty, would a dishonorable discharge be one of the things they should ask for? >> yeah, reduced in rank, forfeiture of all play and dishonorable discharge. benefits, everything a >> i appreciate that. i am concerned. i've been involved in the military justice system and there is inherenty an amount of politics involved ats that level and i think it's important that this is transparent and congress needs to conduct oversight. how nadal hassan was handled to me was a travesty and he got over $300,000 sitting in the brig. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from florida for five men's -- minutes. >> thank you. again, for mr. and mrs. andrews, my heart breaks for you. i'm so sorry. i'm sorry that you have to be here and i'm going to try not to politicize this really for your benefit. to the other gentlemen, really,

thank you again for your service. i cannot tell you how much as a mother of -- i know -- i don't want to keep hoisting my son up but i understand your braverry, your selflessness, just is you -- thank you, thank you, thank you. my first question is to dr. jacobson and if the others want to answer, faine -- fine. what can we learn from sergeant bergdahl? i know we're bringing him back. we've been talking in all types of ways about him. we don't know that much about him. at least i don't. but what can we learn from his capture? can he give us valuable information? >> absolutely, congressman frankel. as i know representative kinzing ser knows from his time in training, a lot of what we understand now about captivity and what we can do to help

inoculate our personnel against those stresses comes from unfortunately the individuals hept captive not just during our wars but during peacetime detention. as we have heard from the military, there ising going fob a debriefing process and in that one can hope that there is information that one day might help save the life or make it less problematic for future u.s. personnel held in captivity in a conflict flt future. believe we were in afghanistan because our own freedoms were jeopardized by al qaeda and they were being protected by the taliban. i want to talk about those freedoms. and what sets us apart from the taliban. and specifically i know you would probably all agree you go

to fight for our freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and something else i would respectfully like to suggest which is our due process of law that we have in this country and what a high standard it is. so my question to all of you is hould soldiers who misbehave be subject to due process of law? >> well, if he's a member of the armed forces he's not subject to a civilian or federal court. he's subject to u.c.m.j. action. >> should he have a due process even though it's a military court? >> yes. that's the whole point of coming forward and telling my side of the story. he deserted. great, he's back but owe needs to be held accountable for his actions. >> there was a real fear in the first 24 hours that there would

be, quote unquote ticker tape parades and rose garden ceremonies and that this whole effort would get politicized and the truth would be buried. that's why myself and others, ecialist fuld, have come forward. >> but i think we agree that the due process of law, he's entitled to that. >> absolutely. >> and lastly, anyone who wants to answer the question, this i'm coming at as a mother, all right, which is do you believe all our soldiers, all these men and we will who go into battle, into war, are perfect? perfect people? >> i hope my friend mike will agree, when you've been in charge of junior troops, hardly a day probably goes by, it's almost like being a parent, where for a parent your kids are imperfect. i'm sure my mother would say

the same thing. that's why it's so important to have well trained leaders and n.c.o.'s in these positions to guide these troops through something that's unbelievably stressful and to ensure they all get home alive. >> well, i do know this. i don't know very much about mr. perfect people? bergdahl or what he was going through or his mind was going through. i hope it will be determined as you have suggested. that's fair. but i do know that so many of our young men and women are coming home and they have been stressed out and are mentally unstable and i would not like to think that they would not be subject to due process if we committed a crime. so with that i want to thank you, thank you, all of you for your service. again, mr. and mrs. andrews, i'm so sorry for your loss and mr. chair, i waive the rest of my time. >> the -- just so the record is

clear, mr. andrews served in the united states air force so all four of you all, thank you for your service. >> thank you for your service, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. panelists, i appreciate you being here. thank you for your service to our great country. mr. and mrs. andrews, thank you for the sacrifice of what you went through. i as a grateful citizen and member of this great congress and appreciative every day of the liberties and freedoms we get to experience because of the willingness of people to serve, commit, and dedicate to this country. i thank you. i think we should keep the narrative on the policy. the description of whether or not he was a deserter or not, as you brotdub -- up, specialist fuld, that will come out and go through its due

process. whether -- mr. waltz, you said in your bio that you deal or provide strategic analysis and policy development for other countries with the transfer of did shall was the transfer of one american soldier for five taliban a wise decision in your opinion? >> congressman, i think we should look at this policy as a whole and learn from it. right now a gentleman by the -- gentleman is the head of the taliban military committee that we released previously from guantanamo and we're paying that price now. furthermore, the head of isis who is terrorize lgiria and iraq right now, was detained earlier. we need to learn from these. >> so in your opinion it's not probably a wise policy. that -- you were saying

democracies trade for prisoners all the time. this is not israel. we don't do that as a policy. i have to remind you that a true democracy is majority rule, mob rule. what i hear the public want to do with mr. bergdahl is mob rule and i had to remind people we're a constitutional recommend where the minority is protected by the rule of law. ben franklin always said, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. the sheep always loses. i need to remind people we are in a republic. we are different and we do follow that. as far as mr. bergdahl, he will come home. any time we get an american soldier back to our country we should all celebrate but before we hang judgment on him, wrong or right, we need to let the

military go through what they're going to go through to decide the fate of that young man. the issues i wanted to ask you about, do we negotiate with terrorists or not, and specialist fuld, you brought up it's not even a nation. it's a terrorist group. again, this goes against our precedents and historical policy. you think this is a wise thing that we do or implement? >> congressman, i certainly think that it's a wise thing that we retrieved sergeant bergdahl. >> there is no doubt about that. but negotiating -- negotiating with terrorists? >> i want to run through a list of a couple of situation -- situations where we have negotiated not only with terrorists but with insurgent groups and state- -- sfate sponsors of terrorism. as i mentioned, part of bring the war to a conclusion will be continued discussions with the taliban. but taking a look back at hour history, not justify the north

koreans. >> north korea. that's a country. >> was a stailtd sponsor of terrorism. >> roque. >> also if you understand that there are differences between insurgents, terrorists, state sponsors of terrorism, the concern i think people have is this idea of ransom for a hostage. i look back eep at what, i'm going to give you allies and the u.s. ronald reagan in terms of what happened with the arms for hostages deal. margaret thatcher and her secret talks with the i.r.a. no one would discount that the i.r.a. was a terrorist group. sometimes up end up sitting across the table from people who have the blood of your friends on their hands in order to bring peace. >> let me ask you both, mr. waltz and dr. jacobson. did the president by not consulting congress 30 days before in your opinion break the law? >> congressman, that's my

understanding of the law. i'm not a legal expert but my understanding of the law was that congress was to be consulted. >> dr. jacobson? >> i'm not a lawyer and europe all going to argue about that statute but i think what the president did acting on short notice was absolutely the right thing to do. >> the gentleman yields back his time. many chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. castro for five minutes. >> thank you. . and mrs. andrews, my condolences and safe travels back to texas. i agree with part of mr. yoho's statement. i want to focus on the policy. he agreement that was made for sergeant border, that was made and there is still a debate whether it was good or bad but i think the most constructive thing we can get out of this

hearing is what do we do in the future? first, if someone leaves their unit. , should we go retrieve that person? and second, what is the appropriate deal we should make for a soldier? so it sounds like at least the prevailing idea is that even if somebody deserts we should still try to retrieve that person. does anyone on the panel differer or disagree with that principle? >> congressman, i think it comes down to a matter of intent. dr. jacobson raised the case of mr. jenkins who deserted into north korea. to my knowledge there were no attempts to bring him home until he will appeared 40 years late fer in lap -- japan. >> would you -- i know it's been -- not been adjudicated that he deserted. assuming for the take -- sake of arc ule that he did, does that mean if somebody deserts

we shouldn't go get him? should we change the policy next time in >> well, i think the problem is as stated, they brought him home to a hero's welcome and we're not the only peel that knew he walked off on his own accord. there was an original investigation done. everybody knew that he walked off on his own. >> so assuming that he did desert and there is no argument, you are saying still bring him home, just don't celebrate him. would that be your point? >> yay, why would you call him a hero whether there is somebody like his son who pushed somebody down and took an r.p.g. round? >> in tems of the policy? >> i don't know. i'm not that high on the pole. >> what is the appropriate deal we should make to have a soldier returned? there is a big iraq here whether you negotiate with terrorists or only nation-states.

but i think the difficulty we're running into here is that our he emmys in this era are no longer just nation-states. they're groups like al qaeda and others. so let me ask you, mr. waltz, what deal would you have made for sergeant bergdahl? >> my own view is that in any negotiation both sides should walk away unhammy. -- unhappy. that means it was about right. in this case the enemy walked away happy, declaring victory and received exactly what they asked for. >> but how does that translate? if you were writing policy what would you have exhade for sergeant bergdahl? >> there's a number of lower-level detainees held in afghanistan and in other places. i think it was the, you know, a lot has been mentioned about trading numbers, the issue for me here is the qual.

>> so you might have given 100 people for one person if they were lower level folks? >> i don't like it. i think that's a policy issue that had to be debated but the decision that was played, these fibe, it was a bad decision. >> did we get anything in exchange for the prisons -- prisoners that were released from gitmo by president bush? >> not that i'm aware of. but i have to say the news reports i can remember from that time period there was talk about, you know, political deals and that. but nothing like the bergdahl situation. >> so that was just a straight release essentially of those folks? >> yes. >> chairman, i yield back my time. > i thank the gentleman from texas. the chair will recognize another gentleman from texas, mr. weber. >> thank you, specialist fuld, what would you say was the morale in nur -- your unit

following this illegal prisoner exchange? >> i'm not in the army any more, sir. >> would you hazard a guess? >> as far as us talking? >> absolutely. >> we were very upset, as i said numerous times, with the hero's welcome. >> in your opinion would this have set um disagreement between enlisted officers and the rank and file soldiers or were they pretty much m agreement it was a bad deal? >> it was a bad deal all the way aroundm >> if you could say anything to president obama regarding this trade, what would you say? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> fair enough. mr. waltz, you are fore warned, same questions. what would you say would be the morale in those units following this prisoner exchange? >> fairly low, congressman. in terms of your second question i would point the president to the heroes at the end of this table. they deserve the same level of treatment. >> would you advise him to make

the same trade twice? >> no, congressman, i wouldn't. to follow on to the previous question, i think there were a lot of policy options that weren't fully explored. more pressure on pakistan for one. he was held by the haqqani network, described as a veritable arm of the pakistani intelligence service. >> what would you say to the sflpt >> i would say good job, absolutely go do this again, bring our soldier home. >> mr. andrews, after having sat here, and thank you very much and you, mrs. andrews for being leer, after sitting through this hearing what now would you say to this committee? >> for one thing, five minutes isn't as long as it used to be. but what i would say to the committee is my son was a soldier's soldier and it didn't

matter what the assignment was, he was going to do it. and i don't believe that you have to be a perfect person to follow the military code of justice. you have a book right there. read the book and do what it says. it's not that complicated. but do not let my son -- so me, this situation with us not being told the whole truth and hen trading a private for five high-ranking taliban, exactly why did my son die? tell me one more time. because i don't know what we've accomplished. >> if you could say that to the president, is that what you would say to him? >> yes. >> flow the hard questions, so forgive me. if you could get your son back by trading five more of those senior taliban?

>> if my son had been a deserter, then no. absolutely not. but my son was a monday of -- man of honor and i would do almost anything. >> thank you, folks. mr. chairman, i cheeled back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the air recognizes gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i want to thank each of you gentleman -- gentlemen for your service. as certainly mr. andrews, i want to let you know as someone who's worn the uniform that many americans feel like the actions by the administration and the president have diminished your son's service and your and his sacrifice and i'll let you know that i'm in that opinion but i also want to let you know that he's done a great thing for the men that he served with and the ones that are particularly alive because

of his actions and a very grateful nation so i want to thank you for your sacrifice as well. mr. jacobson, you keep saying the end of the war regarding prisoner swaps. m just wondering, ha the taliban stated that they consider the war to be coming to a close? referring man, i was to the end of conflict in the second world war and korea. >> so the paradigm is not the same as my point. we plight be drawing down. by -- but the taliban, as far as you know, aring this -- they going to referring to continue to fight? >> well, they've been in talks -- >> as far as you know, do you have have any reason to believe they're going to stop -- >> i don't believe we're stopping the fight, congressman. we're still working with the afghans and -- >> i got it. i got it. so when you say that these folks we released have been so long gone from the battlefield

that they can't be relevant are you aware that mr. baghdaddy, currently running isis was released in 2005? is he still relevant on the battlefield today? >> i can't comment to a specific situation. >> i can comment. he's damn relevant, sir the let me move not. -- sir. let me move on. mr. fuld, there was an investigation regarding mr. bergdahl's absence at one point and i imagine you gave sworn statements in that regard? >> yes. 156. the army ashall -- is aware of the circumstances of his departure? >> yes. >> i -- you do. and i do as well. mr. waltz, understanding your circumstances if captured, what is your understanding if you are were captured on the battlefield of what we would do and what we wouldn't do? >> congressman, we deploy

knowing the high likelihood of being captured and comes with that understanding that wran -- ransoms will be -- not be paid and swaps will not be played. the united states will do everything it can to get us back you a -- but there are limits and i personally would not want anything done that is going to harm our ongoing national security or endanger my fellow soldiers the >> were you ever given the impression that the united states would jeopardize our national security on your behalf to get you out -- >> no, congressman, norway want that to happen. >> let me ask you. on june 3 the a.p. reported that the united states government knew the whereabouts of mr. bowe bergdahl through three sources, u.a.f.'s, satellites, and human intelligence. you're a special operator. you got out in 2009, right? 2014 shall things have changed

a little bit but i know you stay involved and in touch with your community. my point is the options. we had some option. we chose to trade five high-value targets for one rvice member, right, that we wanted to free and have come back home. it's laudable to have him come back. the right thing to do. do you have any lack of confidence in your ability of your unit, the united states army, with the capabilities we have if we knew where he was your ability if tanked with the mission to go retrieve that soldier? >> i don't know the details. >> i know you don't >> but if we knew we are was the e were confident and risks evaluated, absolutely, we have the capability to get get him. >> so you already spoke about the different options that we had or didn't have and you don't think this was the best one. if we knew where he was, can you think, and can you come up

with some scenario when we have people on the ground that do what you did for a living that we wouldn't exercise that option? >> the only scenario that comes to mind, sir, is that this was part of a broader policy initiative to open up talks with the taliban. that this was a confidence-building measure and this has been discussed for some time now that potentially this trade to be a confidence-building measure as a first step toward future talks. that's the only applauseable scenario i can come up with. >> my time is expiring. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy for the risks five minutes. mr. chairman. first of all, to respond to my colleague across the aisle about due process, all of us believe in due process. the conversation today is not about due process. it's about the decision the

administration made for the five taliban members in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. we all believe in due process. we're americans. mr. waltz, i think it was you who indicated that you had a conversation with -- about your country will never leave i behind and i don't know if you -- it was you or specialist fuld who thought it was your country will never leave an honorable man behind. >> yes, it was the >> so was sergeant bergdahl left behind? >> no. he walked off. >> so he wasn't left behind. >> he left us behind. >> dr. jacobson, you have indicated that the fight is not yet over. it's not over. peace has not been declared with the taliban? >> that's correct, congressman. >> so with the war or the fight that's going to continue it seems to me you've made the argument that we're all putting

our arms down, the conflict is going to end, this is going to end. world warism i, we put down our arms and exchange prisoners and everyone is happy. but that's not this case. you have said the fight will ton -- continue. will the fight still going on we took someone who allegedly walked away from his post in exchange for five high-level taliban members of and the fight continues. aim wrong on this? >> the fight continued in korea after the prisoner exchanges and the fight continued in warleddrg world war ii in 1944. my argument is that the risk of putting these five individuals on the battlefield is mitigated by a number of factors, to include all the accomplishments we have seen in afghanistan over the past several years. >> i'll get to the risk in a second. but with regard to the prior swaps that have been made, those have been made with

nation-states, correct? do you have an example where e've made a swap before this one? i'm talking about a swap. did we exchange prisoners with a non-nation stailtd or better yet, with a deserter if that's what the military finds him to? >> the closest thing i can think of it after mogadishu and the negotiations to get back eve -- chief warrant officer durant. that was with aid emple ed, who is not a nation-state. >> with regard to the threat that this exchange now poses, listening to mr. andrews talk about his son and how he hoped he would be able to make that exchange to bring his son back, i think every heart breaks in here thinking about what he has gone through and the sacrifice his son made for his country.

do you feel pretty comfortable that with these five taliban members released that we won't have another hearing like this of another american family who a daughter who is over fighting on behalf -- behalf of their country because of these five that were released? or do you feel pretty comfortable that america say safer place and -- >> our men and women who put on uniform are always at risk regardless of what happened or will happen. >> that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking built five who were released. >> i'm comfortable with the judgment of our military leaders that the risk of not getting bergdahl, i'm comfortable that the assessment they made and the recommendations they made are the right ones. >> i would disagree, sir. mr. waltz, i think you said the taliban got their top five draft. picks.

in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. >> yes, sir. >> good trade? >> absolutely not. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin yields back his time. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've been running in and out of meetings. so i'm sorry if i cover any territory that's already been covered here. let me just note that i disagree with the statement that our policy has been to do everything we can to get back a prisoner. that is not the case. that is p policy for our government. everything we can? no. even the people who are in the field totally understand that we're not going to do things that will further put other americans at seskeer risk in order to get them back. they understand that and that's part of why they're heroes and part of reason mr. andrews' son

is a hero. he knew he was taking a chance and even if he was captured we would not be doing things that would put the american people at risk to get him back home. so i want to mike sure that is a very significant point for people to understand in the discussion of this. second of all i'd like to point out that there are other altern atevbs to try to get these guys back, our man back, mr. bergdahl, than just giving up these five leaders of the taliban. we could have, for example, and i've seen no evidence, have you seen evidence that there was pressure put on pakistan in order to get the taliban to return this prisoner? >> congressman, i'm not aware of the specifics of those negotiations. i've only -- >> so you are a -- unaware and i'm unaware. i've been looking. there is no indication that this administration, didn't

even put pressure on the major supporter, the i.s.i. in pakistan to see if they could get back this prisoner. inzpeed -- instead they gave up five murderous leaders. let's take a look at who they are. one was part of the strategizing for 9/11, which resulted in 3,000 americans being slaughtered in frnt of our face. then there is mullah fasel. i know about about this man. a long time ago he was in fact aptured. this is the second time he was released, you might say because he was captured early on in 2001 after 9/11 and put into a hundreds of th other taliban leaders and fighters and in is a trad -- in afghanistan. the tradition is it's almost a

law that the people live by. core principleses as afghans and that is once you are captured you do not try to overpower the person who has captured you. the reason they have that that are captured you do not try to overpower the person who has captured you. the reason they have that as part of their law is that over the centuries they would have had to kill all their prisoners if they didn't uphold that so it's parted of the honor as a person that once you are captured you do not try to overcome your captor. what happened in this case? yeah, i'm sure he's promised he wouldn't go back to doing something and causing something or putting people at risk but at that time he led an uprising against his captors. hey murdered about 50 afghans. and they murdered his, the guys who were holding them captive, they also plurded a c.i.a.

officer named mike span. i visited that spot. i visited the spot where mike span had been murdered shortly after he was murdered and this . the guy does this release indicate that we are strong? that people are going to have to deal with the united states of america in materials of our military strength? no, they're going to deal with people they think are week and no, they're going to be willing to kill more americans and capture more americans to cut more deals. this is a travesty. the president of the united states has maybe got himself into a position here that i don't know maybe he thinks of

himself as a peacemaker. i think this will in the end have just the opposite impact. i have six echoes. i would like to give our business a chance to retort. respectfully, i disagree. >> fine, yes. >> of the chairman's pleasure, i'm happy to continue. >> the chair recognizes gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> air force reserve and i may chaplain who served in iraq. the issues that came up for me, and some of this may be a

follow-up on my colleague you just mentioned, but you brought are note the fact they going back to the same afghanistan that they left. they would not have the impact they could have had. , whatntelligence information, what would have you believe that they could not get set up in a country that has not changed much in 400, 500 years? afghanistan both as intelligence officer and as a civilian adviser where they work with senior officials every day, there have been a great number of changes if just in the last decade alone. of the networks these individuals had when they were a force fighting against the northern alliance though

longer exist. many of the taliban leadership are dead and i believe the app can people have changed. you have seen in the recent open defiance of threats to kill people who would go through. 40% of the voters, i believe were women who were told not to do this. ofwe saw a great deal turnout in the iraqi elections and we are looking at the breakdown of a civil war. pointing to election is a great getting there?ou we're just going to have to respectfully have a difference of opinion. i do not believe it will take them very long to build from scratch or bring in others. there's a reason they wanted these five. i don't believe they just said that to pick out five. maybe i would like some general

discussion about this but it is something that keeps coming up here. .e are drawing down this war i cannot remember if it was you were someone else but a sickly talking about the fact that we are dealing with terrorist organizations in this global war on terrorism. .ot a chemist and or a country granted when we ended world war there were country states that we are not in that situation anymore. when does the fact that we are fighting -- i do not believe the taliban or al qaeda, any of them have changed their opinion of the west. have theve they still desire to recap the? >> our actions have split views. i don't think there is a single unified view anymore. >> interesting. that. go look at

i think there is still a vast determination as we go forward. i'm not sure where we draw the line now with dealing with, negotiating with, however we want to do this. given the fact that we traded -- there are some who will give an argument that it's the end of the war and we had a have a political outcome at some point, but is this a price you would have ever envisioned paying for someone who walked off or did not walk off? is this what we are looking at? not that we give up with the price that we give up? >> we are still at war whether what people want to admit it or not. just because we stop fighting does not mean they won't want to stop killing us. when i signed in no fit was an understanding that i knew there would be a certain price up to a point that the united states would pay to get me back. if it was me over there, you

could have left me. you to not have wanted trade five high-level taliban operatives for myself. if five was the price this time, what is the rice next time ?he president stepping down a cabinet member stepping down? we are dealing with the same ideological bent of going through many of the countries and iraq is simply a forerunner about afghanistan. i appreciate you being here. this is a concern for many because they do not understand why this happened. given the fact that most will leave this war is not over and we will see these guys again one way or the other. i yield back.

>> recognizing for an additional question. >> in 1944 when we did a prisoner exchange, it was with the not these and that were continued for another year. >> would the gentleman yield? would the gentleman also recognize that the not the government represented germany as a nationstate? representeder anyone as a nation eight. >> they did control and govern with the acquiescence of the united states the vast majority of that data stan until 9/11 but more importantly, if you want to create group that are an anathema to the united states, i would at the not sees right at the top. dr. jacobson. toy investigation is going

disclose the real facts between sergeant bergdahl disappearance and capture but we have heard substantial evidence that he acted in an appropriate and inexplicable manner. can you describe the kinds of stresses that someone like sergeant bergdahl would have faced in afghanistan and whether that would cause someone, not everyone, but some to act in and ask bookable manner? i realize that the vast majority etc.r soldiers, marines, are subjected to those pressures and do not act inexplicably. >> permission to speak? >> you are asking dr. jacobson what situation he was an and i was there and at the same location and i could give you a first-hand account of what

exactly he was going through because i went through the exact same conditions. will ask you then to respond first and then dr. jacobson to respond second. i was asking more and the general severe as to what you face, but obviously you know the specifics. >> we were at an observation post. we had the meals ready-to-eat heated up with water. 30.as very hot and you go without showers for certain days. you do not get any comforts of home but it did not affect anyone else there. we all continue the mission and upheld our oath. everyone deals with mental anothern some form or when they are deployed and everyone else still came back from that same platoon. no one else deserted on their own. there's nothing in my opinion that was so bad that forced them to walk off on his own accord caused by anything going on over there. he walked off of his own accord.

>> vast majority of those in his unit were not affected to the point where they engaged in a group re-it -- in inappropriate behavior. obviously anyone in afghanistan is subject to being shelled were subject to an ied at any time. can you describe the pressures that people are under? and whether that could explain the inexplicable? >> i will not make the claim to be able to explain the inexplicable but the stresses of combat are tremendous. from my own experience, which was not nearly as far or word and deployment does either of my colleagues to the right, you of beinge fear, fear kidnapped, shelled, mortared, what have you. there is tremendously deprivation whether it is on long combat patrols are being

woken to enemy action. you have raised perhaps one of the most important points. just as there is combat stress does not excuse actions such as walking away from one's post. why you have to have the full investigation to determine what happened, why it and in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again and all those individuals who need to be held accountable in the military justice system. >> i want said al qaeda when i meant to say the taliban to correct the record. i yield back. >> the chair has an additional question for all four of you. is way i understand the law before people are released from that the secretary of why it isst explain

in the national security interest of the united states to release that specific prisoner. assuming that is the law and from your point of view, what was the national security interest? do you believe there was a national security interest of the united states in releasing those five individuals? do you believe there was a national security interest? >> i do. >> mr. walt? lessbelieve america is safe and the world is more dangerous with the release of those individuals. >> sergeant? >> i believe the world is less safe in the world is in more danger. >> mr. andrews, last word. >> i believe america is less safe. i believe these five guys are going to come after this.

was a mistake to release them and it did not serve our national interest in any way. >> thank you for being here. the committee is adjourned. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

tor. this is just under an hour.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming. i am david cook from christian science monitor. our guest is taxes governor perry. our first visit from them. he grew up in the west texas town up a creek near where his great, great grandfather had settled after the civil war. he became an eagle scout, went off to texas and am planning to become a veterinarian. as the governor once said, four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me. after graduating from college in 1972 he served five years as an air force pilot returning home to work on his family's 1,000-acre ranch and later entering politics winning a seat in the texas state house as, of all things, a democrat in 1984. in 89 he became a republican and

then next year won election as texas agricultural commissioner with the help of a consultant named karl rove. elected lieutenant, but -- governor in 98 and became the lone star state chief executive december 2000 when george w. bush moved to washington. so much for biography. now on to the ever popular process portion of the program. as always, we are on the record. no live logging, tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while under way to give us question -- time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session is over. if you'd like to ask a question send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, raised eyebrow or wave of the hand, what have you. i will call on as many votes as possible. we will start by offering our guest of the opportunity to make opening comments. we will move to questions around

the table. thank you for doing this. >> thank you. reached over and touch my forearm. >> okay. >> i will take that as a clue to wrap up my remarks. [inaudible] it is a distinct honor. [inaudible] >> in all seriousness, it is a pleasure to be able to sit around the table with so many of you that influence what goes on in the world. ..

the freedoms that we have until they lived around the world back in the early to mid-1970s and seeing how people were treated and somewhat downtrodden in certain places and making the relationship between the type of government that they had in those countries and how the people were impacted. and it's really, it really had an impact on me and is one of the reasons i got into public service business to make a difference. i had no idea was goin