become one again. i just had that comment. that's it. >> and this was the headline on the "richmond times" dispatch. david brat stuns house majority leader eric cantor in gop primary. billy on the independent line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. just calling in to voice an opinion. cantor again taking a swipe at the president and he's talking about the conservative views, but what he doesn't realize is those were the views that he lost on. does he realize right now that he lost? and it's ridiculous the things that he said. he lost. he actually lost. and until he accepts that, not that obama lost, cantor lost to another person with an agenda which is the same basically as

what they're trying to do. thank you. >> eric cantor announcing he's stepping down as majority leader effective july 31st following the defeat yesterday in his primary in the 7th district of va virginia. we're going to take a few more minutes of your calls and then we'll show you the entire news conference because some of it was shown over on c-span and some of it here on c-span 3. we wanted to show you all of it and take more of your call. john is calling us from illinois, independent line. >> caller: yes, good afternoon. first of all, you got to realize, the major tea party groups did not come out openly supporting mr. cantor's opponent. and i think the major issue facing this country is that illegal invaders coming into this country. what are we going to do with all of these thousands of kids crossing the border. we should send them back.

definitely we should send them back. we're going to absorb them in our society? who is going to pay for all of this. >> let's check twitter. c-span chat is the hashtag. couple reports from robert who writes for "the post." mcmorris rodgers, i've decided to remain conference chair at this time. eric cantor throwing his support behind mccarthey. thanks to eric and his staff for their service the our country. boehner quoting church hill regarding cantor's success is not final. failure is not fatal. more of your calls coming. let's hear from sam in brunswick, georgia and show you the news conference. sam, go ahead with your comments. >> caller: the reason that cantor lost is because he failed his constituents.

this was not a national election. this was an election in his territory. he failed his constituents. that's why he's losing his seat. now on a national level, the so-call demised detar pi is not dead. the tea party are people who have had enough with the same old same old same old and they're looking for somebody who can come in and maybe make some kind of a difference. >> well, sam, you're calling on a republican line. do you think this win by david brat, one, is it the biggest win so far by the tea party? what does it mean for other republican races across the country? does it give them some momentum? >> caller: it should be a big bucket of cold waterlogged in the face of establishment republicans who just want to be a part of the good old boy club. that's what this should send a strong message to.

>> you just had your primaries down in georgia, correct? >> caller: yes. >> how did that turn out, if you want to give us an idea of who you supported down there. but in terms of tea party support for can dates, how did it work? >> caller: well, i'm not really a big fan of kingston. i think he's kind of -- a lot of people aren't too pleased in some ways with the job that he's done. >> so he won the primary for the senate race, correct? >> caller: right. >> yeah. >> caller: and as far as i think it's buddy carter and dr. bob johnson in my district who are going to have a runoff for that congressional seat. >> when does that run off happen in georgia? >> caller: i think it's in a couple of weeks or so. >> appreciate you calling. more of your calls coming up. what we wanted to do is show you the news conference in its entirety. we'll be back with calls.

good afternoon. first of all, i just want to talk a little bit about what happened last night and then going forward. you know, growing up in the jewish faith, you know, i grew up, went to hebrew school, read a lot in the old testament and you learn a lot about individual set backs. but you also learned that each setback is an opportunity and that there's always optimism for the future. while i may have had a, suffer a personal setback last night, i couldn't be more optimistic about the future of this country. i couldn't -- you know, i'm honored that i've had the privilege to serve and represent the people of virginia's 7th district. you know, people often lament what is wrong with this town but i want to remind you of what's

right. i've had the honor to serve with so many distinguished colleagues. these are the people who fly across the country every single week trying to do what they can do help their constituents live a better life. these are members on both sides of the aisle. i have been more than on norrhoo serve as the majority leader for for the last several years. my colleagues and i are alsoe a served with people with the same noble intentions of trying to help the constituents of ours lead a better life. these staffers are the backbone of this institution. i'm proud to have gotten to know them and their families and actually call them part of my family. i always like to recognize the sergeant in arms, the capitol police and in particular the dig tear protection division who i've come to know personally and

i've gotten to know their often hundred herald service. i've gotten to know the people who make up the community of the greater richmond area. richmond, virginia is a special place i've called home my entire life. i know that some of you, my friends in the press core have joined me there recently. i encourage everyone to make the visit soon. we house republicans have made some tremendous strides over the past few years. we fought for every child for the ability to go to the school of their choice and to receive an education. we prioritize medical research and led the way into an unprecedented era of technology

and its break through. we forced the reduction of spend in washington in consecutive years for the first time since the korean war. and we fought to protect people from losing their insurance or facing higher health care costs due to obamacare. we passed bill after bill that would increase pay' reduced cost for middle classworking families. some people think washington gets nothing done. well there's a stack of bills sitting in the senate that shows house republicans do get things done. we get a lot done. and our priority is building an america that works for the middle class families that are struggling in the country. but there is more work to do. conservatives have solutions that can help alleviate the middle class squeeze and provide opportunity to all regardless of their circumstance in life. and i will continue to fight for each and every american whose

looking to better themselves and help their families by pursuing the american dream. while i will not be on the ballot in november, i will be a champion for conservatives across the nation who are dedicated to preserving liberty and providing opportunity. truly, what divides republicans pales in comparison to what divides us as conservatives from the left and their democratic party. i hope that all republicans will put minor differences aside and help elect a republican house and senator so they we may all benefit from a proper check and balance that leaves our nation more secure, more prosperous and freer. the united states of america is the greatest gift to mankind and i'm confident that our nation will overcome every struggle, exceed every challenge and share the message of freedom, prosperity and happiness to all

liberty-seeking people around the world for decades to come. now, while i intend to serve out my term as a member of congress in 27th district of virginia, effective july 31st, i will be stepping down as majority leader. it is with great humility that i do so knowing the tremendous honor it hads been to hold this position. and with that i'm delighted to take some questions. >> mr. cantor, why did you lose las night and what can the party learn from your loss last night? >> i'm going to leave the political analysis to y'all. i nona my team worked incredibly hard. they do a tremendous amount of work. i'm proud of their work and grateful for what they did. in the end the voters chose a different candidate. >> you're going to leave the political analysis to others. but you personally have done some reflect in the past 24 hours. do you think that maybe you spent too much time here with

your job as leader tending to your rank and file and not tending enough to constituents back at home? >> you know, i was in my district every week. there is a balance between holding a leadership position and serving constituents at home. but never was there a did i not put the constituents of the 7th district of virginia first and i will continue to do so. jeff. >> mr. leader, what message do you believe that this sends about the future of immigration reform? should it be stopped at this point or do you think it should go forward and would you -- what have you talked to speaker boehner about? >> first of all, what i would say again on the political piece of that, i'll let y'all do the analysis. but i will say that my position on immigration has not changed. it didn't change from before the election, during the election or the way it is today. you know, i have always said the system is broken, it needs reforms. i think it is much more desirable and practically doable

if we did it one step at a time, working towards where we have common ground and believe things in common. i don't believe in the my way or the highway approach that the president laid out and i've continued to take that position. i've said that there's common ground at the border. there's common ground. i would like to see the issue of the kids addressed by those that didn't break any laws and come here unbeknownst to them. so again, i've always said that there should be and is common ground if we would allow ourselves to work together. paul. >> who do you want to succeed you and how divisive will the election be within your conference? >> well, i don't know who it is that will actually be running. i can tell you that if my deer friend kevin mccarthey does decide to run, i think he would make an outstanding majority leader. and i will be backing him with my full support. >> mr. leader, i'm curious a, a lot of focus has been on the

politic side. but on the policy side people are wondering what this means for the export/import, you touched on immigration and some other things that are going on. this is the end of the legislating of this congress or do you think this congress can still get those big things done in. >> we've got a -- you know, obviously this month and next we are very fulton floor with appropriations measure that my team and the committees are working on. we have got cftc authorization, we've got some energy bills that will speak to bringing down costs if americans who are facing the summer driving season. we've got a full set of bills, probably got another group of human trafficking bills to be done. the chairman of the house financial services committee i believe has announced a markup on the tria bill. there's a lot of things in motion. yes, we will continue to work and hopefully the senate will reciprocate so that we can get the work of the american people

done. chad. >> thank you. can you talk for a minute about, you known, all politics is local here, you lost your race. a lot of people are going to try to read broader things into this. but why shouldn't some republicans be scared as they move into their primaries where you say you spent every week in your district where they feel they've shored up their base and get a challenge. why shouldn't somebody be running scared after an unprecedented loss by a majority leader. >> i think as you rightly suggest, all politics are local and there was obviously a lot of attention that was cast on our race. but again, i think that our members are in good position in their districts and again i'll leave the political analysis of what happened to y'all. >> democrats said you were too extreme. conservatives said you were too compromising. what advice do you have for your successor. >> maybe we had it right somewhere in the middle.

again, you know, i think that this town should be about trying to strike common ground. i've always said it's better if we can agree to disagree. but find areas in which we can produce results. i've said this before. i've talked about my wife and i now married almost 25 years and believe me we don't agree on everything. we have managed to raise our family, have a wonderful marriage. she has stood by me throughout this public office stuff and been a strong advocate for me and not always believing in everything that i believe in but we've managed to raise our family and do well. i don't think that's too unlike life. i don't think it's too unlike the legislative arena and i think more of that could probably be helpful. >> mr. cantor, what do you think your loss says about the party's direction for 2016? some of your republican colleagues are already saying that it only 'em boldens the tea party to elect a more conservative uncompromising republican can date? >> first of all, i'm going to

leave the political analysis of what happened yesterday to y'all. i would say about the tea party, rep what the acronym means, taxed enough already. all of us conservatives and republicans believe in that. and when the tea party first came about in 2009, i believe it was largely in reaction to the tremendous overreach on the part of the obama administration with the stimulus, obamacare, and the country rose up and said enough is enough. so i do believe that what we have in common as republicans is a tremendous amount of commitment to a better and smaller government and greater opportunity and growth for everybody. and the differences that we may have are slight and pale in comparison to the differences that we have with the left. and those expressing support for liberalism and a more expansive government. >> if you have the elections on july -- i'm sorry, june 19th and

you're stepping down july 31st, can you actually have a leadership in waiting that long or will that only create more friction? >> again, i think you'll have to speak to the speaker about the timing of the leadership elections. and i will say that we've got a very busy floor period. i've announced ever since the beginning of the year we've got a lot on the floor. my team has been heavily involved with the committees in drafting legislation and making sure that we can run the floor and be expeditious in the legislative process. we look forward to a productive june and july. >> you didn't want to do political analysis. what about personal analysis. i mean, did you kind of look in the mirror before you went to sleep last night and say, how did i let this happen? >> no. i believe we did everything we could. i'm very proud of my team on the ground in richmond for all they did. there was a tremendous outpouring of support on all

sides. i, you know, again, i just came up short and the voters elected a new candidate. >> what's next for you? what's your next move, sir? what do you think you'll be doing after you leave congress. >> that is probably between my wife and me and i will be looking to see how i can best serve, how i can best be a part of what we really have been about here with the agenda called an america that works. remember what it's premised upon. the notion that conservative solutions of personal responsibility, limited government, more liberty can produce the results and solve so many of the problems that the american people have been facing in an obama economy under the obama administration. so thank you all very much. >> think you might run again in two years? >> house majority leader eric cantor from within the hour announcing that he's st. petersburg down from that position effective july 31st because of the stunning upset really yesterday in the primary

in the 7th district in virginia. he's held that seat for seven terms losing by 12 point to david brat yesterday. so the majority leader will step down on the 31st of july and the republicans in the house not wasting any time. they apparently will have leadership elections next thursday, the 19th. we're opening up our phone lines to get your thoughts on the resignation of eric cantor. republicans, 202-585-3885, democrats, 202. 585-3886. let's look at facebook.com slash c-span. comments from from joje who said he should have stepped down a long time ago. stephanie says, good riddance. glad to see his arrogance caught up with him. roy says now if we can get the rest of the sellouts out of congress we might be able to

salvage this country. let's go to calls. this is ocean side, california. simone, thank you for waiting. two ahead with your comment. >> caller: i was just going to say, you know, eric cantor lost. okay. the ideas still survive. okay? we just want maybe some fresh blood, some fresh ideas in there. and he's a good man and yeah he's got the right ideas, the right legislation and such. but maybe it just needs a little tweaking and maybe fresh blood, even though they call it the tea party, it actually is just people who care about where their money goes. >> eric cantor losing to david brat yesterday as you saw there by 12 points. david brat a professor in virginia. this is brooklyn abraham on the democrats line. hello. >> caller: yeah, i would like to

say as a lifelong democrat. eric cantor has started to see some of the light on some of the immigrant problems and the negotiating and compromising is not a bad word. and the problem with the tea party that i look at it is they're not willing to compromise. and gentleman that won last night, he sounds like he's not going to be willing to compromise. so it's all going to be gridlock. >> so in the end you think the immigration issue, at least aerc cantor's views on that for lethal in that 7th district? >> caller: in a way it was lethal but in a way compromise is not a dirty word. for some people i guess it is. but without compromise you get nothing done. >> let's go to the independent line. charleston, south carolina. rory, hello there. >> caller: i'm actually calling from san bernardino, california.

>> go ahead. >> caller: i agree with your last caller. i do think the immigration issue is what did him in. when ronald reagan passed amnesty in the 'ans, he promised border security. that never happened. there's a lot of talk about the dream act. parents are rushing their kids from central america because they want them in this country if the dream act takes effect. without border security first i believe that the issue of immigration reform is a poisoned pill for the democrats or the republicans. i see the effect that illegal immigration has here in california and frankly, the people here in california would rather see marijuana reform than immigration reform. >> okay. rory, thanks for your comment. that was the headline in the "richmond times" dispatch. they protoof two signs of the

republican discord. they write that there were menacing signs for u.s. house majority leader eric cantor. few paid any mind. cantor's lopsided loss last night in the 7th district seat he first won in 2000 was a crashing end to an otherwise steady trajectory that he expected would lead to the speakership. they write about in march, in cantor's home county tea partiers and libertarians disdainful of the congressman's republicanism blocked his forces to take control of the county delegation to the county's district convention. then in may at the district convention, a short distance from the outer subdivision where cantor lives, the same coalition voted out cantor's hand picked district chairman and replaced

him with a tea party activist. just a quick look here at this map, this is courtesy of the virginia access project. this is a map. richmond, the red is pretty much what david brat won, right around richmond. if you go north a little bit, the counties north of richmond, that would be orange and cull pepper, close tore the d.c. suburbs is where the biggest support was for eric cantor. nila is in allen, texas and on the democrats line. what do you think? >> caller: well i think that i've got a couple of points. one is that i think eric cantor should have stayed in touch better with his base personally. i think that that's a huge mistake that a lot of people are making on both sides. i don't think it's just republicans or just democrats. i think that the republican

party is going to really see a loss of eric cantor because he knew the art of compromising on most issues. and if we keep having gridlock, this country is getting nowhere. we have got to learn to compromise. it can't be all one way or all another way. >> all right. nila, thanks for you call. eric cantor alluding to that sentiment in his comment as well. maria, republican line and danielle, go ahead. daniel, okay. go ahead. >> caller: my concern is the way our politicians are conducting theirself. i'm a total disabled vet from the korean war and the vietnam war and i am so disappointed in the way they're reacting to all of these things like benghazi and this soldier who's supposed to have been captured by the

enemy. and i lost a lot of my friends in the korean war and i lot a lot of my friends in the vietnam war that i went to school with, and i think it's a shame that a deserter is being treated in all of that time, that they wasted all of that time on trying to defend him. let them tell the truth. if the truth is going to hurt, then punish him so. if he's telling the truth, then do what he has to be done. >> just a reminder, we will return momentarily to the hearing today, the house arms services committee on the release of sergeant bo bergdahl. but our caller mentions news out of the senate this afternoon, a tweet here, the senate passes sanders mccain veteran's bill and that happened over in the u.s. senate. 9:15 tomorrow morning the house veterans affairs committee will take up the veteran's health care issue tomorrow morning here on c-span3 at 9:15 eastern.

let's get a couple more calls. this is new york city and alex, independent line. hello. >> caller: hi, how are you today. i used to be a republican but after the last few years in watching what that party has done, you've had several callers talking about compromise. we've compromised again and again and gotten nowhere. cantor spend 5.5 million, brat spent 200,000 and it was a 12-point victory. i don't see hillary clinton running. a wakeup call to the republicans out there, this is going to happen again and again in all of the elections. we're tired of compromising and losing this country. thank you very much. i hope you have a great day. >> lester is on the line. hello. >> caller: the reps, not only cantor but speaker boehner and ryan, they've told us so many lies over the last few years, all they want to do is keep their jobs. i believe every one of them

should be elected out of office. too bad the american people can't see these lies, can't see what they're doing to this country. they keep going out and voting for these people. they haven't done nothing for the middle class in the last three to four years. >> one more check of twitter. this is steve, says, when you work for the koch brothers your future is never secure as eric cantor found out. one more call on the independent line is waylon in new orleans. hello there. >> caller: my thing is if they do their job, put their country first instead of acting like children, that the country would be great again. back in the day when the country

was strongest, everything has been moved overseas. there's no real factories and stuff no more because we lost our way. >> appreciate your calls. more of of your comments welcome at facebook.com/c-span. and "the wall street journal" tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern you can see all of the news conference with eric cantor at c-span.org. it was a five-hour hearing today in the house arms services committee. that too is available online. we'll have all of it in our program schedule later on this c-span networks. but let's resquloin the hearing underway now with john kline of minnesota. >> i'm sorry but these responses are very, very torch rouse as we're trying to weave around legalities. there are probably a lot of

lawyers here on the committee. but fundamentally i'm just trying to understand who made the decision, when it was made to do the transfer and who made the decision on the notification and why. we're just walking around here. i'll just close because my time is rapidly running out. by saying that this confusion leads to this, this belief that was treszed by mr. turner and others that in fact the united states did set a precedent, did break the policy of negotiating with terrorists. despite the maneuverering of the pieces. it was really call ban but we weren't talking to taliban either because we were talking to cutter. i think all of that adds to the confusion and perception. i field back, mr. chairman. >> may i just quickly respond.

i notice that congressman has 20 seconds. just a general response. sure. 17 seconds now. >> yes, there was confusion. this was imperfect, inprecise. just to go back to a time line, we didn't even engage here sure there was confusion. we didn't know from day to day what we had, what we didn't have. questions over here about the taliban not having a good track record on keeping their word. they're in, they're out. we had every assurance to what steve has talked about. absolutely. sure there was. but through that we had to stay focused on what the object ty was.

that was getting the american p.o.w. back with the reassurance ps we needed to be able to say that it would substantially mitigate the risks and it was in the interest of the country. that's what we tried to do. i know there are differences and questions. i get it. but we did get him back and we don't have any more pows. >> originally this was worked through the qatarrys working through the taliban. there's no evidence whatsoever that we or the qatarrys negotiated with the network. it was always the taliban. it was the taliban reaching out and then reaching out to us. the people we were negotiating with was the taliban. who held him, but the people we were talking to about his

release, the people that controlled his release was the former taliban government now the insurgents. is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> my understanding is in the very beginning there were direct talks between the u.s. government and the taliban. and thit it later became incorrei indirect. but there was never a time that we were negotiating with the has connies as far as i'm aware of period. >> i was going to use an example earlier, but mr. runyan had to leave. profession football player had an agent, the agent negotiated for them. the owner has a general manager or somebody that negotiated for him. but at the end of the day, it's the football team negotiating

with the player even though the player and the football team aren't there. it's other people negotiating that. so are they part of the taliban? what's the relationship? >> to tell you the truth, you're out of my area and this is something that the intelligence committee folks could address better. >> i am too. i'm not an attorney. i'm just asking the question. >> i want to commend you for your effort to set the tone of this hearing which i think most members have adhered to. i want to thank you for that. this is the way that -- this is the tone that we should have in this hearing.

because this is a hearing. secretary hagel, i'm apologizing to you for not being able to repeat your first answer to the question about whether or not we negotiated with terrorists. it's clear that we did not do so. and i want to ask you some questions. mr. preston, you're the attorney so you're familiar with the constitution and the separation of powers and the power of the executive insofar being the commander in chief. and those duties and obligations are not specifically set forth in the constitution or limited

in any way. would you agree with me that defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014 restricted the transfer of gitmo detainees by the commander in chief without giving 30 days notice? would you agree that that restriction is on the power of the commander in chief? >> i would agree with that. >> and would you also agree that the poump that decision was to in effect require congressional approval before the president could utilize the power of commander in chief to transfer a

detainee without giving 30 days notice to congress? would you agree? >> i understand that to be the general intent. >> and would you further agree with the signing statement that president obama issued in signing the national defense authorization act that that was an unnecessary limitation or unwarranted limitation, not unnecessary but he said unwarranted limitation and violates the constitutional power -- constitutional separation of powers principle? >> i understand that the signing statement served the president

to make cheer his few that these restrictions in application could impinge upon his constitutional authority. >> isn't it a fact that section 1035 of that national defense authorization act does not make any pro visions for a time sensitive prisoner exchange negotiation of the sort that we have with mr. bergdahl? would you agree that it does not provide for that circumstance? >> not by its expressed terms, yes i agree. >> what would be the effect of the presidency if the president were to comply with the undue

restriction and seek 30-day approval from congress before dealing with an emerging, an emerge ent situation? >> let me first point out that the executive has consistently adhered to the pro visions in all previous transfers and i wouldn't want this transfer in connection with the bergdahl exchange to be interpreted as an exception to the statute whenever there are emergent situations. you can imagine any number of emerge ent situations. this was driven by the circumstances involved here in which the concern was that if in the process of finalizing of this deal and executing on the

exchange there had to be a delay for formal niets that could sutment the deal and endang the prisoner. >> just for the record, it probably doesn't matter whether we would agree that that's a restriction or an an unnecessary restriction. it was the law. it was passed out of this committee, passed on the floor of the house. it was passed on the senate and the house in a final forum and signed by the president. granted he did write a note that e didn't think it was constitutional. but until the supreme court acts and says it's not constitutional, it is, as mr. smith said earlier, the law. mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank both of you for being here. mr. secretary, i believe, as i know you do, that one of

america's greatest and most sacred treasures are the men and women in uniform who risk and sacrifice their lives for the cost of american freedom. we do owe it to each one of them to carry them from the battlefield and back to their home and families. it's also my belief that these heroes, down to the last person, would reject gaining their relose through an unprecedented negotiation with the gentlem gentleman -- terrorists that would return five high value terrorists and diminish the security of the united states and would place a bounty on all of our men and women in uniform. and ultimately essentially weaken america's hold on this priceless freedom for which generations have fought and died. mr. secretary, i agree with you

that every one of our military personnel should know that if they are captured by the enemy that we will come and get them. but that isn't what happened here. what happened here is that the obama administration has telegraphed to terrorists has the world over that all they have to do is kidnap an american soldier or citizen and the united states will capitulate and free some of their most dangerous terrorists leaders. mr. secretary, i want to say this the right way but for the last five years the american people and terrorists themselves have watched in astonishment and disbelief as this amendment has handed back people to our enemy mis. my thought is there are terrorists watching this hearing in complete jubilation. so my question is, do you believe that this, what i believe to be an illegal trade, is going to be intensify the terrorists policy that you mentioned and their efforts to

kidnap american citizens and personnel of our military forces across the world that would afford them the obvious leverage that they've gained here in this case? >> congressman, as i've said before, our military is always at risk, especially in war. afghanistan is one such place. so those men and women are at risk and have been. >> but has this intensified the terrorists efforts here and their policy? >> if i believe that that would have been the case, i would have never signed off on this. as i said earlier, the taliban's position on trying to capture american servicemen and women have been clear for 12 years. >> certainly this deal has undergirded that policy. certainly this seems to be one of those things that would encourage them to focus on it more. >> i don't know how that would be after -- for 12 years it's been -- >> for the fact they've got the entire american people focused on this debate that they ba

brought us into this chaos that they've gained these gains certainly would tell me they see there's great value in doing that. >> one issue that's not been mentioned here this morning is the tremendous progress the afghan government has made, in particular the military. i think that's rather measurable, looking at the elections we've got another election, the final next week. they're doing all of the combat missions themselves. yes, they have a ways to go. but the reason i mention that, congressman, is because this is a different world than it was five years ago in afghanistan or three years ago. and the increased strength of the afghan army and all of the institutions of afghanistan is a significant part of this. if i believe that it was going to increase the risk to our soldiers, i would have never ever signed off on this. >> well i don't doubt your sincerity in that regard.

i do profoundly doubt your judgment on that front. >> that's fair. >> so let me finally ask you, can you clarify -- of course i didn't get it clear a moment ago. what is the connection or the relationship between the haqqani network and the pal ban? dwl i don't know the relationship and by the way, i said in any statement that the haqqani network was holding bergdahl. we know there's an affiliation, an association. we don't know if the taliban is subcontracted to the haqqani's to hold bergdahl. we again can get down deeper in this in a classified hearing. >> i think that would be important for the record at some point. >> we don't know all of the pieces. >> i'm out of time, mr. secretary. thank you for your answers. mr. chairman i believe this effort has ultimately weakened america's freedom in the world. >> ms. spear. >> mr. chairman, thank you.

and thank you for the balanced way that you have handled this hearing. let me say at the outset to my colleagues, i was somewhat stunned by one of the earlier questioners about bo bergdahl. and i would just ask us to think for a moment how we would be responding if bo bergdahl was our son. i really fear for his return to this country with the kind of rhetoric that is being spewed in this very room. to you secretary hagel, thank you for your very persuasive presentation this morning and for your leadership.

i'd like to ask kind of a fundamental question. in hindsight, which is always 20/20, do you think it would have been appropriate for you to have informed the leadership of both houses? >> well, congresswoman, in hindsight, i suppose any of us in our own lives in every decision we've ever made, could we do it better? i mentioned that in my opening statement. yes, we could have done this better. but i also said that we thought we had one shot here and we were told by people that we were engaged with, this gentleman right here was on the ground in cutter. we can go into more of the details. that any risk of any, any leak

in anything, any security operations break would jeopardize the deal. we didn't know what kind of health bergdahl was in for sure. all we had was a six-month video. we did know that he had been transferred back and forth quite a bit. we were not sure where he was. five years in that captivity. and i don't think anybody on this committee would think that that was a walk in the park. and we'll find out more and more about it. but we do have some intelligence that's clear on this, on some of the conditions he was held in. so you factor it all in and we were told that this may be your last shot at this. it was a judgment. that's right. could we have done it better? could we have done it smarter? i would just add this. does anybody on this committee really believe that i would want to come up to this committee, the president of the united states would want to take the criticism that he's taken on

this issue intentionally if there wasn't a good reason. >> let's move on. thank you. >> i mean, come on. you can question our judgment on it. that's fair. but we did this because we were concerned enough with the fleeting opportunity, we might miss it and we just didn't want to risk any further security of operations. that's all. >> in open hearing can you provide us with information about how these five detainees were held? were they subject to waterlogged boarding torture or anything else when they were at gitmo? >> let me ask our counsel on this, because i'm not aware of any kind of torture or -- i don't know. i wasn't -- haven't been around for the 12 years they were down there. i'm not aware of any, any situation that would have put them through any of that. but i don't know. i'll ask general counsel.

>> i'm not either but i have not reviewed for that purpose. >> could you do that for us and report back to us? >> we will. >> and in terms of their movement in cutter, the first reports were that they were going be housed in some secure location and then word came out that, no, they were going to be able to freely move throughout qatar. if in fact they are moving freely through qatar do we have ankle bracelets on them. how do we know where they are every moment? >> we'll get into this and i'll answer your question but this really needs to be in a classified setting. short answer is yes, we have the kind of assurances we think are meaningful alibi enforceable and we believe the qatari government will enforce it but we need to take thunder in a classified hearing. >> all right. my time is expired. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, trust is a fragile concept. and you said towards the end of your conversation that you broke trust with the committee and with congress and i would agree with that. >> i didn't say -- >> let me finish. we can get the transcript out and read it back to you. over and over and over you and mr. preston both have said we don't trust congress. we don't trust congress. it's insulting, it's disrespectful, and i get it. and so our system of trying to deal with you and deal with us demands trust. you made a self-laudertory comment. i have to truth that's your word. i can't do that. you put a rift in the entire

system. mr. secretary it was very offensive, went over that 30 day notification trigger. mr. hagel, it's your responsibility to notify congress not the president's responsibility. you're to make that notification. did you personally decide on your own not to do that? >> i decided in consultation with the inner agency, the president was aware of it. >> it's your call not to notify congress. as a senator -- >> i notified congress but i notified congress when -- >> not even within the spirit of the 30 days. even if you did it on may 12th, you would not hear this push back from us. >> congressman, i explained why the notification was handled the way it was. >> i know. >> by the way, i never said i don't trust congress. that's your words. >> yes, you did. over and over. >> i never said i don't trust congress. >> mr. secretary -- >> you want to check the record. >> were any of the detainees

aware of the negotiations for their release? >> let me ask the general counsel. i don't know. >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> if we were to get the visitor logs and flight manifest at gitmo it would not show these guys were conferred with as part of this process? >> i don't -- >> i'll take that -- >> i don't think so. i'm sure with investigation we'll turn over everything that we have. >> we would need to be able to trust you. >> i get that. >> and we don't. out of respect -- >> i never said i don't trust the congress. those are your words. >> no. your actions said. >> i didn't say. you said i said it. >> your demonstrations, mr. secretary said you don't trust congress and the ranking member something like this, your actions say you don't trust congress. i get it. with respect to the release of these five, and the overall impact it has on the ability of the taliban to work its mission in afghanistan would you agree

or disagree that a weakened taliban would be better for afghanistan than a stronger taliban? >> yes. >> would you agree that the return of these five individuals, once they served their halfway house nonsense in qatar and get back in afghanistan will strengthen the taliban and their efforts to do whatever it is what they want to do in afghanistan? >> maybe. do you know that? >> maybe? >> we don't know. we do know -- >> what it was said sign the open press that's in fact they would do. >> what's a fact. somebody is projecting 12 months down the road and that's a fact? >> you think for 12 months in this halfway house is going to somehow cure them of their hatred of america and their ability to want to not take -- >> that's not what i said. that's not what we meant. taking it as fact, congressman, something that has not happened or won't happen for 12 smos a

bit of a leap. >> there were broad parameters that said here's what we'll do in negotiating with the taliban. classified at this point. nonetheless a long list, the phrase we won't -- nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. somewhere between january 12th and may 27th of 2014 that changed the deal that notified -- you're trying to cling to that you, in fact no, ti if ied congress this is going on. when did that change occur and were you part of that decision? because the way i under it all we got was sergeant bergdahl, as wonderful that is, that's it. no other agreements that were in those broad conversations you had with us or the administration had with us in january of 2012. none of that appears to be part of that deal. when did we abandon that criteria and why weren't we notified that change was made? >> when did we abandon that criteria? what criteria. >> the criteria from january

12th. >> what criteria. >> i can't tell you that it's open session. >> i don't know. i can't answer a question that you can't give me the question to. >> i'll remember that the next time. never mind, mr. secretary. >> mr. barber. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary and mr. preston for being here today. last week during our recess i was homicide in my district as all of us were and i met with many veterans. i was in sierra vista that is home to a fort and i had about 70 people come to my event that weekend and over and over again, virtually every one of them was a veteran. they said to me what's going on? we agree we should never leave one of our armed forces behind. i agree with that too. but they wanted me to know if it

was appropriate that we released these detainees from guantanamo in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. they asked couldn't we have gotten a better deal? in your statement, mr. secretary, you say this transfer was a tough call and i'm sure it was. and that these detainees were enemy belligerents. one of the five detainees was the deputy minister of intelligence and another was the deputy minister of defense for the taliban. yet you also stated these detainees were appropriate in exchange because they had not been implicated in any attacks against the united states and that you have no basis -- we have no basis to prosecute them in federal court. i actually find these statements very difficult to accept, mr. secretary, given the status that these particular individuals had before they were captured. it's hard to believe that these individuals in these positions within the taliban government had no role in attacks on

americans, so could you, mr. secretary, speak to this issue and explain to the people i represent and to this committee and those of us who are all across this country asking these questions why you believe the release of these men was appropriate and does not pose a threat to our national security? >> congressman, i think i've answered the question and i think i addressed it. you quoted from my testimony. let me start again. we recognize as i said in my testimony and i think the answers i've given this morning that there are risks. there are always risks. there are going to be risks in a deal like this. we had to factor in every circumstance that we could factor in, our intelligence, where these guys came from, what facts we had on them as you noted from my testimony. how big a risk would they be? how substantial could we

mitigate those risks for our ali, our country, our service members. we think we've done that. we think we've done it through a 12 month pretty tight enforcement of memorandum of understanding. we know that after 12 months that's another deal. but factoring everything in, we all felt, everyone secure, was secure on this in the national security council signing off on this, number one and our number two uniform military, general dempsey and winfield that we substantially mitigated the risk to this country. and i believe that. i would not have signed it. the president wouldn't have signed it. >> well, thank you, mr. secretary. let me move to a second aspect of this issue and i under that this is hard to predict. but we, as you know, of course, have not been able to secure

bilateral security agreement with the afghan government, president karzai is on again/off again. i was in afghanistan a couple of months ago and i was wanting to find out how our troops were reacting to this situation and particularly to the attacks, verbal attacks that president karzai has made on our troops and on our country. of course, we have an election coming up in just a few days but my question is, do you have any sense of how the release of these detainees will impact on the ability for us to secure a bilateral security agreement with the new administration whoever that might be because clearly we've seen a lot of anger in afghanistan over the release and we wonder, obviously, how that might affect future agreements with the new afghan president. >> congressman, as you know, the two finalists, one will be presumably the next president of

afghanistan, either beabdullah abdullah or his opponent. one of the first things they said they would do is sign a bilateral agreement. we've heard nothing to change that. i believe that commitment is firm from either one of them, from both of them and they made that commitment. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hagel, prisoner exchanges in the past, for instance after e korean war and the vietnam war was hammered out. after the bergdahl deal this is what happens after end of wars. how is what is happening in afghanistan the end of a war other than the president has made a unilateral decision to remove our forces next year no matter what the facts on the

ground are? in other words, have we negotiated some type of peace with the taliban, making this an end to the war? >> well, first art of the question, congressman, i don't think anyone would have wanted us to wait if we had a chance to get bergdahl until the so-called war is over. we had an opportunity to get him. it was a fleeting opportunity. we did it. >> so the president was wrong when he said this is what happens at the end of wars? >> no. that's the first part. if you let me finish. this decision the president made, this wasn't a new decision. you go back to the lisbon nato conference of 2010 it was established by partners in 2010 combat missions would come to

the end for 2014 and our partners. the only questions that remained up until about a month ago is how many forces would the president decide to leave behind in their mission to assist and advise. that's not new. there was no arbitrary -- >> the administration's position isn't new. but i don't understand how thinks unilateral decisions bring in the taliban and make them a negotiating partner. >> well, i'm not sure he said that. but what you just said i'm not sure what you mean. >> after vietnam, after the korean war, korean war, prisoner exchanges were done when a peace agreement was signed. this is unprecedented to have a release like this before there's even a peace agreement. all that's happened is the president said we're withdrawing forces and the taliban are not a

party to the negotiation -- the afghan government was not brought in on this, were they? >> this was a prisoner exchange and, again, i don't think the american people would have wanted us to wait. if we had a chance to get our p.o.w. -- >> you keep saying that this is a prisoner release. it's not a deal with terrorists, releasing a hostage. this is a negotiated prisoner release with a legitimate type of government. i don't see where the taliban -- >> i'm not sure i get your point, congressman. >> you're saying this was not a deal with terrorists. is that correct? >> that's right. >> you said the alternative is that this is a deal with a legitimate government of some kind, with a legitimate military that we're in the process of hammering out a peace agreement. none of those things are happening. >> the president didn't say we're in the process of hammering out a peace agreement.

this was a prisoner exchange. i mentioned this morning in one of the questions you go back to the 2012-2011 days there was the larger scope of reconciliation and neighbor taliban and afghan government getting to a peace agreement. that's what we were talking about in 2011-2012. taliban shut all of that off. so this was a straight let's get our prisoner, prisoner exchange. >> was the afghan government brought in the loop on this decision during the negotiation? >> no. >> but you said earlier that this was an attempt to among other things reconcile the afghan government and the taliban. >> no, i didn't say that. >> you didn't say that. >> i said the opposite. this was not. in 2011 and 2012 there was a broad framework of reconciliation. that was 2011 and 2012. that has changed.

totally changed. >> i'm just trying to understand how this is not a deal with terrorists holding a hostage. you cast this as a legitimate prisoner swap and yet they are a terrorist organization -- >> the taliban have never been designated by us as a terrorist organization. >> the treasury department says the pakistan taliban is a terrorist organization. >> the pakistan taliban. >> and the state department says the haqqani net swooshing terrorist organization. >> we're talking about the afghani taliban. these are bad guys. there's no question that they are bad guys. of course they are. and i laid that out and i said that today. but, again, i go back to all the considerations that we put into play. to substantially mitigate the risk to this country to get our p.o.w. back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. secretary hagel, thank you very much for being here and, obviously, a challenging circumstance and i want to thank you for your service and say that you probably more than most people in this room know what it's like to be in combat and could imagine what it feels like to be left behind. so i want to thank you for that very principled stand, because we do have that policy and we tell our men and women that we will not leave them behind. so i want to thank you for that. i do have some concerns, though. and one of the concerns is, obviously, you know the trade. i'm particularly concerned about why five? is that the minimum number that they would accept because looking at that we got one, they got five and we know that they are bad guys like you said. and so i have some concerns about the number to begin with. then i'm also would like to comment -- i'll let you wrap up

with this, but i would like to comment on the reintegration process. one of my colleagues suggested that there is something going on that you didn't just quickly bring him back, but i do remember watching our p.o.w.s from vietnam coming back and we learned a lot of lessons about dropping them right into american culture after having been isolated for so many years and so my understanding is that this is a reintegration process and there's three stages and we have to allow the former prisoner to work his or her way through these stages. so i would like you to address that and also why five and then i would like to put my comment in that i do believe that congress should have been notified. i probably split the difference here between my colleagues. i understand why you might not tell all of congress because of the sensitivity and the timing and the risk, but certainly i do believe the leadership of congress should have been told.

so, anything else you would like to add to that i still have three minutes and please tell me why there's five, a little bit about the reintegration process and any other comments you would like to add. thank you. >> congresswoman, thank you. on the reintegration process, i think everyone agrees that the principle focus now on sergeant bergdahl should be his health. maybe someone disagrees with that, i don't know. but for us, for the military, that is. getting him healthy enough, his body, mind, spirit and that's the point of a reintegration process. you know your point about what we've learned since p.o.w.s came back from vietnam is an important point. we learned a lot our doctors have. our health care specialists have. everyone is different to start with. every situation is different to start with. so, that's the focus.

let's get him healthy. mind, body, spirit, then we'll get on with the rest of it. the united states armed forces and his family agrees with this incidentally. we let the medical professionals make those calls. >> let me add this doesn't mean that he won't have to answer questions. there are important questions that need to be answered. we're just waiting for him to be well enough. >> that's right. as i said in my testimony, both the secretary of the army, the chief staff of the army has already said there will be a comprehensive review of all the circumstances surrounding his disappearance. >> i thank you for that. now why five? >> i'll get to that. one other point on that. i remind you again you'll have an opportunity to look at the so-called form 15-6 which does give a review at the time of his disappearance, it was signed off i believe in august of 2009.

that's up here at the committee. now the five. okay. general counsel has asked -- >> before the secretary addresses -- >> i'm sorry we won't be able to because my time is running out. i would like the answer from the secretary. >> very well. >> we can talk in closed meeting. >> i can give shorter answers. why five? first, i have addressed this in other questions about how did that all come about and originally it was six and we went back and forth over the years. they wanted all the taliban prisoners, the taliban did wanted all in guantanamo and so on. and it settled at around five to six, the sixth detainee died. there's a bigger issue here. the american people, the american society, our armed forces has never seen life exchanged of just one for one. we put a value on our american

lives as the most important thing. not that other societies don't. i can't speak for any other society and i wouldn't try. but our society is every human being is important. so, why wasn't it 20, why wasn't it three? the five started to be what the taliban insisted on. they wanted more. had been six. then they wanted everything. so, i don't think there's any magic to it. that's the way it developed. but, again, we don't put a one for one deal on our -- >> thank you. i just want to reiterate you can trust congress to handle this. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. whitman. >> thank you. secretary hagel, let me go to the administration's own guantanamo task force report where they reviewed the files of these five detainees that were

transferred and unanimously recommended in 2010 they continue to be held by the united states based on the specifics of their cases. the task force also said that it was conceivable with adequate security measures the five could be sent elsewhere eventually. in light of those recommendations, that these detainees continue to be kept and that recommendation taking place when it did, can you tell us what extraordinary security measures can qatar offer today to allow for this transfer? >> well, again that's the essence of much of our mitigating dimension that why we signed off on the deal. those assurances the first year. congressman, again i'll say when we close this place down and go

into the classified we'll go into every one of those specifics but i would tell you this. you may have already read the mou which we sent up here yesterday. and we'll be glad to take you down into the subparagraph 6 of each one of those to get to your question. but to go beyond my testimony here i don't want to do that and if it's okay we'll wait. >> let me go back historically then and look at the history of qatar and what they've done in receiving detainees. as you know, the first transfer to qatar was in 2008 and was that one considered a successful test case? >> i believe. i just asked our general counsel if we just had one transfer. is that right? >> to my knowledge. >> we had one. it wasn't particularly good.

what changed i address this here this morning. first of all you have a new imir. we have more presence, asset there's. their relationship with the area and with us is significantly changing. now are these absolute guarantees? no. there are very few arrogants. but things have changed enough to be able to have confidence in the enforcement that the imir told the president of the united states that he would personally see to that as well as the government. and if you follow down as you did through your reading of those mou requirements and then we'll get into the details, we felt confident that, that mou covered enough, the enforcement was good enough. >> you did acknowledge there was an additional risk there in qatar taking those detainee,

especially based on their past performance. are you comfortable with that risk. does that now set the stage for the u.s. transferring detainees to other nations who have not met obligations under previous agreements in accepting these detainees from guantanamo. >> you said the right word risk. that's the essence of what we're dealing with here and the analysis that we made, the decision that i made as well as the national security council and ultimately the president. again i say we believe that all of this together substantially mitigate the risk. >> let me ask this. there's some concern too of those considerations given for the qatari government and what they will do to keep up with these detainees, is there an

opportunity for these detainees to go to the qatari legal system to that have these travel restrictions lifted so that under legal means they could actually have free reign to travel throughout qatar and elsewhere. >> i'll ask the general counsel. he signed the mou. i'll ask him to handle that question in particular because he negotiated and signed it. thank you. >> i think the question is best answered in the closed session, if you would indulge us in that respect. >> okay. let me close by asking this then. what happens to these detainees after a year? >> as has been said, the restrictions of the mou are for a one year period. that includes the restriction on their travel outside of qatar. so after one year -- >> after one year no

restrictions. >> except under circumstances that we would discuss in the closed session. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, mr. secretary and mr. preston. i appreciate very much your service. mr. secretary, you said in your testimony that this was a -- first of all let me say i think a lot of people have had very emotional reactions to this and what they've seen about this with incomplete information. and i certainly think that's understandable, but these are difficult circumstances to judge and we as elected officials and you as appointed officials have to put aside our emotions and political expediency in order to best use our professional judgment and obviously what will be said in secret session also pertains to this. but what i'm concerned about now is the law, the notification of congress. and you said in your testimony,

i believe you actually used the word unique circumstances. i'm a little concerned that this isn't unique. it might be rare. but not all that unique. and do you believe that congress hadn't thought this was a sort of issue that could come up when they passed the law, should we amend this law if, indeed, these kind of, you know, very rapidly evolving situations occur where you would want to have the authority to do a prisoner transfer? first the secretary and mr. preston or either one of you. >> well, here's the way i would answer your question. first, it was an extraordinary situation. and maybe everyone doesn't agree with that. i absolutely believe it. the president believed it. national security council leaders believed it. for the reasons we've discussed through the last three hours and

actually more. so, i think we're on pretty solid ground in saying this was an extraordinary situation. i think it also gets into the constitutional issues that we have discussed here this morning. the responsibilities of the president. given to him through article ii of the constitution, what are his authorities under that article. it doesn't discount what the congress passes as laws. by the way, this is not the first challenge to a law by a president. as has been noted here, president bush, george w. bush probably signed as many signing statements as anybody. executive legislative differences exist probably since the beginning of the republic. so i answer that, your question that way too and then if you want to hear from the general

counsel. >> well, actually, let me just stick with you answered it just fine, mr. secretary. i am concerned, though, that there was an opportunity to notify congress. i've heard some reports that 80 or 90 people in our administration knew. i don't know if you can confirm that or not. but sort of the answer that goes back 2011, 2012, i agree with the chairman on that, that was a different set of circumstances and different congress. i wasn't in that congress. and i want does concern me that that many people knew and there wasn't some sort of a notification of congress. particularly given that, obviously, the qatari officials knew. how are we to avoid the perception that this administration trusts qatari officials more than it trusts leaders in congress? >> well, you may see it that way

as a congressman and i wouldn't question your perspective. but i would just say this. qataris had to be a part of it because they were part of it. they were doing the deal. we signed the memorandum of understanding with them. there would have been no prisoner exchange without the qataris. so not everybody, by the way, in the qatari government was aware of this. and, again, preston was there. so i don't think it's a matter of we trust the qataris but we don't trust our own congress. i've already addressed this too as you know congressman in our opening statement. could we have done it better, smarter, yes. >> i think my concern and i'm not sure if this would rest in your office or not. my concern is okay i understand the circumstances under which the department was not able to obey the letter of the law. my concern is whether the department even tried to obey the spirit of the law. certainly not informing myself rank-and-file member but at

least the leadership of the relevant committees that this was happening. >> well, again i'll say and i know members of this committee don't agree with this, but in explanation as to why we did what we did and again i'll say one sentence, we were very, very concerned about the risk. we had a fleeting opportunity here. we were told there was a risk. the more people who knew about it the more risk. i get that. i get why did you trust some in the white house and not here. i get all that. but your question, overall question about who knew and who didn't. i don't know about the 80 or 90 number. i can tell you my responsibility is dod. very, very few people knew about this dod. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary good to see you. i guess you said there were better ways to do this, more precise ways to do it. i guess my first question would

be is that because dod was not in charge of this the entire time? >> congressman huntser, i'm sorry i just read a note. i apologize. take it out of my time. would you repeat the question. i'm sorry. >> was dod in on this the whole time you said before this could have been done better and i'm guessing that means if you were doing this from the beginning this prisoner exchange it would have been done better? >> well, i appreciate the comment. but, yes, was dod involved right from the beginning yes we were. >> let me interject. we talked in february and i said because state department had this option on the table and this had pre-approval from the executive to go ahead with this prisoner exchange, this was months ago, you appointed mr. lundkin as the representative to the bergdahl case, which makes me think that you weren't heavily vested in this from the very beginning but you did get

vested in it a few months ago. >> no, that's not true. you're right. let's pick up february and you're right we had the conversation, you know, you had written me about this, i did appoint lundkin who oversaw the whole operation, mike lundkin. congressman this was so fast-moving, everything you said is right. there was a break and i got the -- >> i don't need that from you. what i'm asking -- let me put it this way. did you have other options that you looked at for approval or at least consideration, nonkinetic options that you looked at for at least consideration? >> you mean dod? >> you, yes, sir. >> yes. no, actually. this was the one option. >> this was the only option that you considered? the only nonkinetic option? >> we considered everything and we are. but where we were in the time

frame you're talking about and the scope of the reality here this was the one option we were all work towards that looked like the best. that's what lundkin did -- that's why i appointed him to get into it. >> let me ask again. did you have other nonkinetic options that you looked at for approval or at least consideration? >> not anything that was serious. i mean we look at all kinds of things all the time. >> let me ask, so you didn't pass any other courses of action besides this one for the president's consideration? from the department of defense? >> if you're talking about this specific deal with qatar -- >> getting bergdahl back. just getting bergdahl back. >> this was the one on the table that was the most realistic, viable and no we didn't present that i'm aware of anybody in dod present any other -- >> let me ask this then. why would the president approve or you approve only one course of action after seeing now

self-admittedly no other courses of action? i've never heard that where you say this is the one thing that we've chosen to do and we're not going to consider any other courses of action besides this one. that means the president didn't have any other options nonkinetic opening from the dod that you recommended to him because you said you recommended no other options to him except for this one. >> congressman, we weren't holding all the cards here. if the taliban wasn't ready to engage. >> forget about the taliban. what i'm asking you have different courses of options. if i want to come in to this room i can enter through that door, that door or that door over there. you didn't consider any other options besides this prisoner exchange and you only recommended to the president this one pathway to get bergdahl back? >> congressman, this was the only pathway that was emerging that was available. there was no other pathway unless you're aware -- >> i am aware, actually.

these are not from special briefings so i can mention a few of them. you had dod, your department, working concurrents openings with pakistan to get bergdahl's release. you had other options that we know that at least people in your department had looked at. and we won't go into those nonkinetic options. it astounds me for something this large you wouldn't recommend to the president any other course of action but this one and that the president of the united states would not have looked at other courses of action besides this one before he made the decision to approve this. >> well, two issues here. one is do we always look at other courses of actions. yes, we do. second issue is recommending to the president. this was the most viable, best pathway we could find, we knew that was active. the taliban were coming back. the qataris were telling thus

they were coming back. so we pursued that as the most immediate viable and possible option we had to get him back. >> in closing i would think that there were better options and i think that the president should have been better briefed by folks in your department that knew what those options were and i hope that the dod and mr. lundkin takes a stronger role in trying to get the rest of the americans back that were forgot envia this exchange back in afghanistan. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it's good to see you again. i served in iraq with a vietnam veteran with e-7 who went back and didn't make it back home. i think your background and the background of all of us who have worn a uniform and been in combat informs how we feel about

the release of sergeant bergdahl as well as how we feel about someone who abandons their post and exposes their buddies to attack by the enemy. however, it's never been the practice of the united states to leave one of our own behind on the battlefield, regardless of the circumstances of their disappearance. we do everything we can to bring them home. you didn't leave the home be dealt with by the enemy. it's not who we are as a country. it's not who we are as a military. now that doesn't mean that there are not questions that need to be answered about the circumstances around his departure from his post, and i would hope that the military will take appropriate acsthon review the circumstances again, and i have full faith in the leadership of the united states army and the uniform code of military justice to conduct a thorough investigation and to carry out any justice that the result of a subsequent investigation may warrant. that said, i wanted to ask you

two specific questions. first, are there any plans by the dod or the department of the army to go back and review the circumstances of his disappearance and then if it is found that he did abandon his post or desert there would be an investigation perhaps prosecution? >> congresswoman, yes and thank you for your service. and to the other members of this committee who i didn't by name acknowledge but i referenced as you noticed in my testimony, thank you for your service. yes, as i noted in my testimony and a couple of the answers i had given this morning, secretary of the army, chief of staff of the army, both indicated did last week that they intended a full comprehensive review of all the circumstances involved in the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl.

the results of those -- those reviews will term if any action will be required based on conduct and based on review. they feel strongly and i do, but i'm not going to get involved in trying to influence that, that's a united states army decision, as you know how this works. they are open to get the facts and wherever the facts lead them they will get them and they will respond appropriately. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you have to ask me. >> would the gentlelady yield, please. >> yes i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. secretary, you have a tremendous perspective as miss duckworth has alluded to with your background as a combat

infantryman. now, i'm sure that you weighed every pro and continue in this decision-making process and your decision was made in the best interest of this nation based on the facts you have as a whole, i'm sure. and it's really, unfortunate, that the toughest decision that many of your critics have been making on this as to whether or not they should run for re-election. now have you received or heard a single sounds suggestion from any of these monday morning quarterbacks as to a better course of action you may have taken in this decision? >> the cup board has been rather bare on that account. we have a lot of experts in this town, especially. but as i said and i appreciate your service, sir. i'm well aware of it.

in this town it's pretty easy or anywhere else to give analysis usually uninformed and criticize every decision. that's okay. that's the role everybody has. the country is built that way. everybody's opinion matters and counts. everybody has one. in the end as i said in my testimony, some of us are dealing with the responsibilities of having to make the tough choices. you make them up here in your votes and i make them. that's the way it is. and that will always be that way. so i just deal with it and i do the best i can and i do what i think is right for my country and i don't have any problems sleeping. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> gentlelady's time expired. they have called the votes about six minutes left, about 394 haven't voted yet so i want to

thank the secretary, we've gone over what we thought we would, it would take, but it's a very important issue. and this is the largest committee in congress and everybody wanted to have their questions answered. secretary has agreed we will take one more question then break for votes. i would encourage all who have not had an opportunity to ask a question that want to, return, the secretary said he'll stay for that and then we'll reschedule at a later time closed session part. dr. fleming. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary hagel, we talked about this 30 day notice yesterday, the chairman told us that he received notification after sergeant bergdahl had actually been transferred.

i'm sure his counterpart received a notice at the same time, really a notice after the fact and i listened carefully to all the question, all the legalese, the technical, the spin, everything. it's clear to me that really what happened here and this goes back to the question from the previous gentleman as to what else could have been done, has there been any other offers. my understanding is that back in 2011 and in 2012 when this issue was first brought forward that secretary clinton opposed it without additional measures and protections. and i believe also mr. clapper and others as well, congress on a bipartisan basis pushed back on this seen it really suggests to me that when this erupted again this past january that the president decided he didn't want to hear no. all he wanted to do was to move forward, get it done, and

whatever thing he could do here in terms of lawyering or end runs around congress or whatever, i mean it's been reported by many different agencies that at least 90 people in the executive branch knew about this but yet the chairman of house armed services did not know about it. so, i mean isn't this really just an attempt by the president to do an end run around congress to not take no for an answer or not get some push back and maybe a little bit of wisdom from people who have been around here a long time and have been elected? >> congressman, the president of the united states, like every president of the united states as you know has constitutional responsibilities but moral responsibilities on behalf of every american. his first responsibility is the

security of this country. and i have never seen in the time i've known him and i've known him since he's been in the senate and i've been in this job for 15 months any time he flinched on this. you may disagree with decisions he ever made but there was no political decision. now on clinton and clapper, the director of national intelligence has already made a statement on his agreement with this. >> but he first opposed it is my understanding. >> he did. but he explained why he has changed his position. as did, by the way, secretary clinton's situation was the same. it was a different world in 2011, 2012 for all the reasons -- >> all i'm saying there's a benefit to more heads, more wisdom in this. the president didn't want to hear no and he wanted to do this no matter what. >> he wanted to make sure we could get our p.o.w. back but no matter what. >> i understand. >> you all were driving this as

the american people. >> i didn't say no matter what. that wasn't my statement. now as far as who had control of sergeant bergdahl, we keep hearing about the taliban, but the reports have all been haqqani network, you yourself i think suggested that. we know the haqqani network is an international terrorist organization. we all agree with that. and so ultimately just because we have a surrogate in this case qatar who is going between, who is acting as an agent, how is that not negotiating with terrorists? >> well first let's look at the objective here. it's to get our prisoner of war back who was a prisoner of war, it was a prisoner exchange -- >> aren't we violating a commitment, a doctrine that we've had for decades by doing that? >> no. no. >> how is that not negotiating with terrorists simply because we put someone in between, how

is that any better than direct negotiation >> we engaged with the government of qatar. >> wouldn't the outcome be the same. >> the other end was the taliban. a combatant against us in war. >> but still, surrogate -- wouldn't the outcome have been any different if we talked directly with the haqqani. >> you and i disagree on that. >> i don't think it would and i don't think i hear you saying there would be any difference. >> hear me say what? >> i didn't hear you say it would be any different. you said you didn't know. >> i didn't know what? >> that the outcome would be any different whether we talked with haqqani network -- >> i didn't say that. not at all. we were very clear who we were talking to and why and following the law. that's what i said in my testimony and i said it all morning. >> i yield back. thank you. >> gentleman's time expired. okay. we'll recess for the two votes.

i would encourage members return as soon as possible so we can finish up the questioning. committee is recess.

>> committee will come back to order. thank you for your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. your patience in this entire process respect that. i want you to know i hold you in high regard. my limited military service i was never activated or shot at. i thank you for your service both in uniform, public office and secretary of defense and my respect for you will be undiminished though we'll work through some tough topics. it would be helpful to me if you would review concisely as you could the number of people who at least within the department of defense were aware of the impending release up to and until the moment that sergeant bergdahl, in fact, was released and then or transferred, rather,

and that the five detainees were then given over to the representatives from qatar. >> congressman thank you. i appreciate your comments. >> i don't have the exact number of individuals within dod who knew about the operation. but here's what i would say and i mentioned specifically dod, this was ongoing as the days as you know the timelines here, you start with essentially -- i start with about the 21st and go down to 27th. each day there had to be some more people brought in -- >> if you could, my time is so limited. if you just had to estimate that amount, how many, approximately? >> i just don't know. >> that's okay. >> it would be wrong.

>> the number that i have seen -- >> we'll get it. i just don't know. again suffice it to say we kept it very, very small number. >> i appreciate that. what's largely in the public domain has made it clear to me that a number of people certainly more than 25 or 30 i'm very safe with that, certainly on the dod side perhaps if you're, when you come back and tell us in a definitive way how many. but the point of it is this. if we look at the 30 day requirement which is the law of the land, even if one sets aside a strict interpretation of the 30 day requirement, even if one gives every benefit of the doubt the testimony that you provided here today and what other administration officials have provided in public statements, i remain convinced that really no effort whatsoever was made to comply not only with the letter

of the law but even the spirit of the law. and i do not understand why no effort was made whatsoever to pick up the phone and to call a committee chairman either on the house or senate side. to me it seems like a repudiation and really a slap in the face to this institution, this equal branch of government. and i do not understand, even though i listened carefully to your testimony and by other officials what compelled to you move without picking up the phone? >> well, as i've said this morning a number of times, we felt that the fleeting opportunity to get this done required an absolute minimum in people who knew. i also said that if we had an opportunity to come back around and do this again, we didn't handle some of this right.

so i get that. and i've taken exactly what you said. but, the reason we didn't let anybody know right up until the end is because of what i said, we were concerned. we thought we were -- we really did believe that the risk was so great just one thing getting out. and i unique point of view. so that -- >> mr. secretary, i was and remain convinced that you exercised your best judgment. i don't question that. i do believe that damage has been done to the governance aspect of this, to whatever trust and confidence there may have been in the administration's commitment to complying with a law, statutory requirement, and i think it might yield and result in something, you know, from this institution that i think there ought to be some formal

condemnation of it, frankly. but i appreciate your service to our country. indeed do i. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you, ranking member smith. >> i want to revisit the issue of the threat that these five taliban present and i think you've been very straightforward in saying without question you knew there was risks. and as always if you simply look at one side of a deal, it's not going to look good. but the issue was can you get sergeant bergdahl back. and how do you balance the risk of that. i think this committee has to be careful about acting like we got nothing out of this. we brought home one of our soldiers, who, you know, based on what i have seen was in very, very poor health. was in a very dangerous situation and we met that obligation. so we got something for this. that's not say that releasing these five taliban came with no risks. of course there's risks. that risks is exaggerated.

one said it's like releasing 10,000 fighters which isn't helpful. these five guys as i under it were mid-level commanders, mid to high level commanders in the taliban. they've been out of the loop for 12 years. presumably in that time frame the taliban had replaced them frequently. now this is five more that, you know, probably after a year will go back and help the taliban. but how out of the thousands of taliban that are actively working against the afghan government in afghanistan and also, you know, there's no real evidence that these five were part of attacks against the u.s. homeland, they were part of the taliban government, they are interested in toppling the afghan government. but where is the evidence they are interested in plotting attacks against the u.s.? so can you revisit a little bit how much is that risk

admittedly. but how much risk, in your assessment? >> congressman, thank you. i ask the dni, general clapper to give me and the intelligence community an assessment of that question that you asked me to come back to me with the best assessment they could give me recognizing first we start with there is risk. we get that. and i'm going to read to you three sentences what i got back and this is, i think, unclassified so i think we're fine and then there's more classified. but this is one observation. this is the, our intelligence community total, threat if returned to afghanistan or pakistan. one, should these five detainees

return and re-integrate with the taliban their focus would almost certainly be on taliban efforts inside afghanistan. not the homeland, the united states. second, a no matter how senior, will not appreciably change the threat to the afghan people, to the afghan army, but most importantly, for us, to our forces. just again go back and note, will not appreciably change the threat. this is the intelligence community's latest report to me. third point they make is a point i made this morning in pointing out the significant progress of the afghan military, the army, has made other over the last few years. they say the same thing, afghanistan's future will depend more on send outcome to the

second round of presidential elections. how afghan security forces perform against the taliban over the next 18 months and continued external donor support that allows kabul to fund civil and security functions. so does that say there's no threat? no. but we've never said that. but this is the best, most recent assessment from our intelligence community. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. during the 2011-2012 consultations with congress regarding a larger deal with the taliban, the secretary of state, then secretary clinton, told the national security chairman in writing and verbally that if detainees at gitmo were transferred, this was not an "exchange," but rather these taliban detainees would only be released as part of a larger diplomatic process. she identified a number of

prerequisites to this deal over and above the security assurances from qatar. so mr. secretary, in addition to the release of sergeant bergdahl, which of those other prerequisites were met? >> well, first i start with, this is really the answer to the general clapper issue which he had the same position, as you know, as secretary clinton in that year. but because things have changed, general clapper has supported, signed off, on this deal. one, the whole dimension of afghanistan today -- where the afghan army is, where the afghan government is -- that's first. second, the assurances, written assurances that we have, from qatari government, particularly

the emir's specific personal commitment to the president of the united states. a change in leadership in qatar. these are all differences that were not present in 2011 and 2012. also, the framework -- and i've read the letter, by the way, that the secretary sent. the framework, you recall in that letter, as i mentioned earlier this morning, was a larger reconciliation piece. not that bergdahl was incidental to that, but bergdahl was not the core of it. this time bergdahl is the core of it. so those are some of the differences and the changes that are pretty dramatic. and in fact, why general clapper signed off on this and supports this decision. >> what i would like to know is, what else did we get for this deal? i'm not minimizing the impact of the sergeant himself.

>> well, start with the sergeant. >> well -- >> but what else? i mean -- you mean reconciliation -- >> there were other things talked about in that letter that was hoped to be secured as part of an overall deal. >> but this was not an overall deal. this was a prisoner exchange, versus 2011 and '12. where the framework was, what the intent was, and what the objectives were. those objectives were far wider and wider, as is your point. >> at the briefing on monday the question was asked whether any money was exchanged with qatar or with other people for this deal. and the answer was, no money was exchanged, but it wasn't clarified with who. and if there was anything in addition. the question wasn't answered whether there was anything besides perhaps money discussed in this.

so did the taliban or any of the individuals involved receive anything from our government other than -- >> no. no. >> okay. at the house-wide member briefing monday night, the same briefing, tony lincoln was asked if this agreement makes american men and women if uniform and other officials stationed abroad safer. i recall his response to be the agreement wouldn't make americans safer. but that the law didn't require the administration to assess that. so do you believe that our military service members around the world, not just in afghanistan, are safer because of this deal? >> the way i would answer is this way. first of all, the objective was to get our p.o.w. back. that was the objective, and we did. mitigating risk and so on, which you've heard this all morning.

but to your specific question, when you look at first -- now we have no p.o.w. that means there are more resources that we can apply in other areas in afghanistan in particular. i think for our military -- i mentioned this this morning. for our military to know that we'll come get them if they're captured, regardless of the circumstances, it may not translate into direct safety, but i think that's pretty significant. plus, getting our forces more of their own capacity to deal with what they're doing in afghanistan without, quite frankly, some restrictions that did inhibit some because we knew every day we were trying to find ways to get our p.o.w. back. i think, again, when you add all

that up, that's pretty significant. >> thank you. >> gentle lady's time expired. mr. secretary, i believe that these are likely already included in the letter that i wrote to you but a couple of documents have been mentioned here today and i'd like to specifically request, if i didn't already, copies of those. the doj guidance to the ndaa that mr. preston was talking about, and the odni assessment that you requested that you just were referring to on the threat posed by the five detainees. please. if they're not on that list, if you can add them. >> we will include them. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon again, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, retired marine

general james mattes, former chief of u.s. central command, said on sunday that the prisoner swap for sergeant bergdahl will give the united states military more freedom to carry out missions against the taliban and the haqqani network. he went on to say that u.s. commanders in afghanistan always lived with the concern that bergdahl would be killed in retaliation for a u.s. offensive against the taliban. i'm quoting here, "we no longer have that concern. they have this pawn they can play against us. it is also a military vulnerability the haqqanis now face the taliban now faces because they no longer hold a u.s. soldier in captivity." now, to me, as a veteran of just over 35 years service, that

means, to me, that the united states military has increased its operational effectiveness. mr. secretary, would you agree with general mattes' assessment and would you agree with the assessment this has in fact increased our operational effectiveness, and thereby, effectively rendered u.s. military personnel safer worldwide. >> well, those of you who know general mattes know that you run a risk if you disagree with him. i have the greatest respect for general mattes and i agree with his analysis. everything that you laid out. and i'm glad he said those things on sunday. because they are things that have not been said throughout these ten days or less and they

are important factors as to how they affect our military. and i believe they're real, and i think his specific points not only are accurate but they come from someone who knows a little something about this business. >> thank you. he's not a member of the administration. he's now retired, is that correct? he's an independent -- >> retired fishing and hunting now somewhere. >> that's a wonderful thing. i look forward to that day, mr. secretary, as i'm sure you do. mr. secretary, i've seen the proof of life video of sergeant bergdahl, as i'm sure you have. it's currently classified. and my question to you is, sir, after having viewed that video, is there any doubt in your mind that his health and mental state was in very, very serious condition? >> there is no doubt in my mind. i rendered that analysis not as anyone who has any medical expertise, but i listened carefully to what our health expert did say, our intelligence