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

people, and then just looking at the past videos of him versus that video. it was pretty clear to me that his health was deteriorating. >> mr. secretary, there's been some previous questioning about the risk -- future risk -- potential future risk to american service members if they were to have to recapture these five individuals who were swapped. in the prisoner of war exchange. is there any evidence whatsoever that any future risk for those five is any greater than the 532 folks who have previously been released by the bush administration or, for that matter, the 88 that have been released from the obama administration, a total of 620 prisoners.

>> according to our intelligence community, the answer is no. >> one final question for you, mr. secretary. sergeant bergdahl, when he was captured, was a private 1st class. correct? for those who are not familiar, that would be an e-3. and today he is a sergeant, or an e-5. so he's been promoted twice by the army during his period of captivity. isn't that correct? >> that's correct. >> were there overwhelming evidence, or any evidence whatsoever that he had done something wrong, would those promotions have taken effect? >> no. as i said in my testimony, it was never any charge brought against -- by the united states army against sergeant bergdahl. >> so it's clearly a rush to judgment against this young man. >> well, i think it is. as we all know, and i said, the united states army is going to

conduct a complete review of all the circumstances once sergeant bergdahl is back and he can speak for himself. that's appropriate. and that will happen. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i know that one of the issues that's been addressed, or that you have addressed in regard of lack of notification to this body was the concern about potential leaks and the impact it may have on the operation. can you tell me, was that concern over leaks so great that it would also prevent limited notification as is allowed to the gang of eight, the leadership of both majority and minority parties in both chambers as well as the chairman and ranking member of the relevant committees? >> yes. >> i know you weren't secretary defense at the time, but was there any less concern -- i know you mentioned that part of it

was the potential for an adverse effect on the safety of the operators who were going to execute the operation. but was there any less concern over the safety of the operational personnel who are actually known to be going into a kinetic operation in the osama bin laden caper? would there be any less concern about leaks and their safety? >> i wasn't there but you're right. there were -- i know -- concerns about that. and it is equally risky, both operations. but this one was different though. we had some much more control, quite frankly, over the osama bin laden exercise, and that operation was more within our control. this one was not. as i said, we didn't even know where he was going to be. >> i understand that, mr. secretary.

but in the osama bin laden raid the gang of eight was notified and there was no leak of information. >> i know. i know. but what i'm saying congressman, is that there was actually more risk in this because we had far less control over this in case something leaked out. >> moving on to another -- i appreciate your answer. thank you. moving on to another question, obviously this issue of the exchange was brought to a sufficient level that it was addressed with members of congress back in the 2011-2012 time frame. and during testimony you said there was a growing urgency to act, the need to act swiftly. that's one of the reasons that we weren't necessarily notified. but had the issue concerning leaks not necessarily been an issue, would you not agree that after you received the january video -- proof of life video -- that escalated reentering negotiations that that might

have been a time where perhaps congress could have been informed? >> yes, that might have been. as i've already said, if we had a chance to redo this, congressman -- >> i understand, secretary. that seems to be an apparent pattern this administration is always coming back after something happened saying if we had a chance to do it all over again, we'd have done it differently. >> well, i can only answer to this one. >> i appreciate that. likewise, i would say after you received the qatari warning that the window may be closing would have been an opportunity, in early may, to come and notify at least the gang of eight. >> well, i've been over this before. again, if we go back and replay everything. but again i say the risk we felt was so great that any leak -- we were told this by the people we were negotiating with. we were warned about this. so, yes, it was a judgment call. we might do it differently again but i don't know. but the risk was still no matter what, overwhelming for us because we thought we had -- we were told probably one shot at getting bergdahl back.

and it was a rapidly evolving opportunity that could close as well. >> i would just close by making a statement or asking -- i'm not sure, were you familiar or have you seen the letter from various chairmen of jurisdiction to secretary of state clinton and her response back in 2011-2012? >> yes, i did. >> so obviously in that 2011 letter to then-secretary of state clinton there, was some significant non-concurrence of that -- >> yes. so my concern is, how much of that letter and the potential for pushback from this organization actually influenced the action not to provide timely notification for fear of being able to ask for forgiveness rather than permission and come back after the fact and say, if we had had a chance to do it all over again we would perhaps do it differently? >> i'm not sure what you mean by pushback with "this institution." >> you know that in 2001 when

this was first contemplated the ranking members and chairmen of the appropriate committees did not concur with the swap. but yet understanding that the environment has changed, perhaps there was a concern by the administration of coming to notify for fear that that same -- >> oh, i see. >> -- pushback would have been -- >> i understand what you're saying. well, i just answered, as you heard probably my answer here, miss hartzler on this. complete change in environment, dynamics, realities, objectives from 2011-'12. but i can tell you from my perspective and what i know -- and i know a lot about it -- was involved only on this deal. can't answer to 2011-2012. but it wasn't because we were concerned that somehow the congress wouldn't go along with it. i've given you the reasons why we made the decisions we did.

thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. preston, thanks for being here. mr. secretary, thank you for your service, both in uniform, here in congress and as you continue your service now to our country. like you, i'm a soldier and understand at the core of my being that principle of leaving no man behind. along with that principle goes another, which is i will always place the mission first. and that mission of national security and the context that that provides to this whole conversation is really where i'd like to focus and where i have the most concern. you have mentioned earlier about the assurance to service members that regardless of circumstances, they will not be left behind. your words. regardless of circumstances, they will not be left behind.

i think that is an issue to call into question, because there are varying circumstances. we were told i think possibly today but in a briefing yesterday -- on monday, rather, that if this were a deal to be done, exchanged with the release of khalid shaikh mohammed, the deal would not have been done. so the circumstances do play a role in this based on that mission of national security. so with regards to the five taliban detain yees who were released, your statements from dna director jim clapper, i'd like to address that directly. because we've had some issues with statements with jim clapper before congress previously on a different topic with regards to his statement that the nsa does not collect data on americans, which he later admitted to be, in his words, the least untruthful answer. it was not a truthful answer.

so i'd like to point to the guantanamo review task force that was done where it was stated that these five individuals specifically, "pose a high level of threat that cannot be mitigated sufficiently except through continued detention." i'm wondering what has changed from the time that this assessment was made by this president's appointed task force of military officers, federal prosecutors, fbi agents, intel analysts, and civil litigators, that has changed? >> well, congresswoman, thank you for your service first. a couple of things. one, obviously is the reassurance that we got from qatar which we have gone over in some detail. second, more to the point of i think that --

>> i'm sorry. qatar is not detaining them though. they are not -- >> the reassurance from qatar that one-year -- i don't know if you had a chance to look at the mou on this on the things that they would enforce so that these five transferred detainees not leave the country, so on, and so on, and so on, which we covered a lot this morning. that's one big thing that's changed to give us some assurance, united states, that these five detainees we would have some control over them. second, to the point that you made about the commission's recommendations, i think that the commission started in 2009. three years has passed. we looked at comments made by guantanamo guards, others. now i'm not saying -- or implying that these five

individuals all of a sudden transformed into st. francis. that's not the point. but the circumstances change in many ways. we felt, again, as i've said here this morning, that when you take the totality of all the new dimensions -- the environment, reassurances, so on, and so on, and what i just -- i don't know if you were here when i just answered congressman smith's question about the intelligence committee's reassurance and their evaluation of how dangerous these five detainees would be if they went back to afghanistan and joined the taliban. >> thank you. >> that's changed considerably. >> thank you very much. before my time runs out, i want to just make one quick point that the discussion of them returning to the battlefield seems to imply that return would put them as foot soldiers with boots on ground. we are talking about the five most senior taliban leaders -- >> they weren't the most senior -- >> who were detained.

who were detained. they can become operational without having boots on ground in afghanistan. we will have troops on the ground for the next couple of years, according to the president's plan, and that's really where my concern lies. thank you very much. >> thank you, congresswoman. we have the same concerns. thank you. >> mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, at the start of the committee you made a statement that said the justice department said the president has constitutional authority to essentially do this deal and ignore the 30-day requirement in the law in this case. is that -- did i hear that correctly? >> someone asked the question i think on what basis the president made a decision and what authority he had. i think my response was -- >> very similar to that. >> could we get a copy of the letter from the justice department that says that the president had that authority? >> sir, we received a request for that and we're taking that back.

it's not entirely within our control. >> thank you. and i look forward to see you that. mr. preston, you're an attorney from yale and harvard. which provision of the constitution would allow the president to ignore the law? >> the president has authority under article 2 and has a duty and responsibility to exercise that authority. it is not a matter of ignoring the law, it is where the exercise of his constitutional authority is intention with the statute, where in this case his duty and authority to protect service members, to protect u.s. citizens abroad with the application of this particular provision in this particular set of circumstances would interfere with the exercise of authority, then the statute yields to the constitutional authority either as a matter of interpretation or through the application of

separation of powers principles. >> so is it article 2, section 2 then that the justice department is using to justify saying that he does not have to comply with the law? >> it's his authority as commander in chief and chief executive. >> article 2, section 2. >> i believe that's right. >> under what other circumstances would the justice department potentially eric holder, simply tell the president that he did not have to comply with the law? >> i wouldn't really be in a position to answer that question. >> i think that's the key concern here for most of us on the committee, is that if the attorney general can simply give the president of the united states, who appointed the attorney general, a letter that says, mr. president, you don't have to comply with the law or the constitution gives you the authority to ignore the law, then that is the law of the land under which the president

operates, seems to be in clear violation of what our forefathers gave us in the system of our democracy where you have a house and a senate and the president. the house and the senate both pass pieces of legislation. the president signs that law -- signs that making it the law, and now he can get a letter from an appointee of his that says, mr. president, you don't have to comply with this. which leads me to a bigger concern in what you said at the start which was that today this country has had, and has the authority to hold detainees that would potentially change in the future but it would not necessarily change at the end of '14 when we essentially declare we're no longer engaged in hostilities in afghanistan, but that that would continue as long as we were in a conflict with the taliban and al qaeda.

and i guess my question then is, that's your opinion. correct? >> that's my understanding of how the international law principles apply. >> yes, sir. and i agree with you. but if we follow the same train of thought and action which they use to determine they did not have to give the 30-day notice, the attorney general could simply give the president a letter and say, you don't have to do this, and he could release everybody. and that's where -- that's why we're here. the law requires 30 days notice and the idea that eric holder or somebody at the justice department can just give the president a letter and say you don't have to comply with the law, that's simply ridiculous. >> well, let me just say in general, the role of the department of justice, among them, is to advise the president on the law.

i wouldn't be in a position to talk about the content and i can't agree with your characterization, but that is normal process for the executive branch, for the president to receive advice on the law in the execution of his constitutional and statutory responsibilities. >> this law is extremely clear. the law requires 30 days notice and the idea that eric holder can give him a letter saying you don't have to comply with the law, then that becomes the law of the land, is a clear violation, separation of powers. >> mr. smith? >> thanks. just following up on that just really quickly, under the bush administration, there was warrantless wiretapping authorized, there was indefinite detention. post-9/11 there was a whole host of things that were clearly against a wide variety of laws. and the president and vice president's justification at

that time was that the constitution gave them those powers given the circumstances. i don't recall any outrage on the right. i recall a great deal of outrage on the left. i recall a number of folks on the left, including one memorable gentleman who wouldn't let me go at the gym about the fact that i was unwilling to impeach the president over this. but this is not even remotely unprecedented. and i was just wondering if you could comment on that from a legal standpoint. the constitution is a law. and now i disagree at first glance with the interpretation that you made here, but it is not unprecedented. walking through what president bush did, he justified an endless array of things that were clearly contrary to u.s. law, based on his interpretation of the constitution and on a much smaller, more narrow scale. isn't that exactly what you guys are doing?

i mean i don't agree with it, but it is far, far from unprecedented. >> congressman, i wouldn't be in a position to comment on what the previous administration did but i think your point is a good one, that in the exercise of the president's article 2 powers, he's called upon to make judgments about the extent of those powers and that's precisely what he does. there will be occasions where the statutory law is intention with the constitutional provisions and there are canons of interpretation that call for interpreting the statute so as to avoid a conflict. but where the conflict can't be

avoided then the constitution reigns. that is not uncommon and has happened in the history of the presidency. >> first, if i may, if that interpretation had been handled >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. mcintyre. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your strong commitment an service to our country. in light of these recent questions, i know it's been a long hearing, i just want to clarify for the record again as we are coming toward the end of this hearing. on page four of your testimony you say, i quote, consistent with previously congressional briefings this administration provided in 2011 and 2010 conducting our intent with these particular five individuals. now in that quote it sounds like you are saying that this -- or it is implying that it met the requirements of notifying "the appropriate committees of congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of guantanamo detainees." yet in the next paragraph, again quoting your testimony, you

state, "i fully understand and appreciate concerns about our decision to transfer the five detain e -- detainees without providing 30 days advance notice to congress." so in that are you stating and admitting that the 30 days advance notice was not met? >> no. that wasn't the point of why i put that in my statement. the point was, it gives some frame of reference of the history of this issue, and in particular the five taliban detainees that had been discussed. it wasn't anything more than that. if i was unclear, then i cleared it up. >> you're just saying you understand and appreciate the concern but you are not stating that in fact you did not meet that 30-day advance notice. is that correct? >> well, we didn't meet the 30-day -- >> that was my point. so that you stated you did not meet that. >> yeah. >> all right.

then, i want to clarify that you're saying exceptional circumstances and that was the phrase used in your testimony, allowed you to construe that it was not necessarily to follow the law as stated by the national security council spokesman caitlin haden on june 3rd. i quote from caitlin haden, notification requirements should not be construed to apply to this particular set of circumstances. that's your strong opinion today. correct? >> well, i agree. think that was probably the core of this conversation and exchange between congressman scott and mr. preston on the authority the president had. and i agree with that. >> i'm just trying to clarify this. then for future reference, is it your opinion that the administration would have this same liberty to disregard or to construe that it is not necessary to follow the 30 days' notice in future similar situations? >> the way i'd answer -- i actually answered it again this

morning once or twice -- is that first, the constitutional responsibilities and authorities the president has, which i happen to -- even though when i was in the senate i would challenge the administration at the time on some of this. but i think that in my opinion, the constitution is clear on that. when there are extraordinary circumstances and situations regarding the security of the american people or a service member or citizen, i think the president has the authority to act. >> all right. so it would -- this decision then -- in future situations that may be similar you believe would always be subject to the administration's interpretation of the situation on an ad hoc basis. >> well, i think that's probably right but i don't think, congressman, anyone wants to ever tie the hands of the commander in chief, of the president of the united states, on an extraordinary situation. i don't think that's what was

intended. i'm not a lawyer but just the practicality of the responsibilities a president has. regardless of the party. >> no. no, i understand that. i'm simply trying to again clarify for the record. so in a similar situation in the future then in light of your statement you just made -- >> we would intend to continue to comply, as we have in almost every circumstance with that 30-day notification in the future on any future transfers. but again, i think any president has to have that power, that authority -- which i do think is in the constitution -- to deal with extraordinary cases. >> that was the clarification i wanted. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr.ing -- mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary hagel.

i want to thank you for your service. i had a brother in vietnam right around the same time you were. so i appreciate what you've done. you've mentioned a couple things today and i'll get to it in just a second but does the department of defense consider taliban detainees at gitmo prisoners of war? >> let me ask the general counsel to give you the specific answer. because that was the basis of what we had the prisoners exchanged on. >> so are they classified as prisoners of war? >> they are not -- they are not technically prisoners of war. they are detained what we would call unprivileged belligerents. and as such, they are entitled to the basic entitlements under common article 3 of the geneva conventions of. but they do not enjoy full-up

p.o.w. status and all of the protections of the third geneva convention. it is a little technical but they are detainees in armed conflict. >> but they're not classified as a prisoner of war. >> they don't meet the legal definition for prisoner of war. >> mr. preston, i think the administration has referred to this as a prisoner exchange. but the administration never classified sergeant bergdahl as a prisoner of war. >> that's, as i understand it, for two reasons. and again, they tend to be technical. one is the term "prisoner of war" relates to a combatant detained in the context of an international armed conflict whereas armed conflict with the taliban is characterized as a non-international armed conflict. other thing is a prisoner of war under the law governing prisoners of war is someone who

is lawfully held. in our very strong view he was not lawfully held but he was a detained combatant in the context of an armed conflict -- was. >> so really doing a prisoner exchange is probably not the correct term the administration should have used. but, regardless, you've heard a lot here obviously -- i certainly don't want to second-guess you in regards to the recovery of sergeant bergdahl. but i do have concerns about the administration -- any administration basically going to an attorney and giving me an opinion that allows me to operate outside the law. had this was passed specifically because of concerns that congress had in regards to prior notifications about these five. i know miss gabbard brought up,

these weren't just trigger pullers, these were planners and organizers. and while they may have been out of the mix for 12 years, what they do bring -- and i think you will agree with this -- they do bring some level of expertise, particularly in regards to the fact that they're highly revered amongst the taliban, so you've just increased their operational -- at least, morale. would you agree with that? >> i would say that the department of justice provides to the executive its legal guidance. the decision is made by -- >> well let me ask you this. secretary hagel, you mentioned this, that if you had to do this all over again there's some things that you would do differently. what would you do differently? >> i haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, quite honestly. >> well, you mentioned it a number of times. >> no, here's the way i said it.

i responded and said in the my testimony. like anything -- i don't know if i've ever made any big decision on anything where i wouldn't go back and maybe say well maybe i cowl have done that better. congressman, i haven't spent a lot of time inventorying what i would do differently. we've got all the things coming at us. but what i'm saying is, sure, if we had an opportunity to go back, maybe we could have handled this differently, should have handled it differently. >> i mean you could have notified congress. >> well, there's -- >> because otherwise what you're say something you don't trust congress. i'm sure that's not what you're saying. >> i had a little exchange on that earlier this morning -- >> i'm sorry i missed that. >> well, i was told by one of your members that i said that, that i don't trust congress. >> i know. i'm not saying that you -- >> i didn't say that. which i would never say that. but -- >> but the actions would look as if the administration does not -- >> i explained it. i get it. i understand it.

i said it. i told you may not agree but why the decision was made the way it was. but i understand exactly what you're saying. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary and mr. preston, we're charged with the responsibility of providing security and defense for this country, as well as you. and we take that oath. you said earlier i know the trust has been broken. and i appreciate that you recognize that that has happened. it's really disturbing to me, i have a track record of being trusted by my government. i served in iraq. i had secret clearance. i knew what battles were coming up so as a surgeon running a cache i could prepare for what may be coming our way. it bothers me that i'm not trusted now that i'm here. it bothers me that you're afraid that i would provide a leak with my record of service. and i think that stands for many others here. and if that's not even considered, it's really bothersome and should be to the

american people. but i'm glad what i was in uniform i was trusted to carry out my mission as opposed to here by this administration apparently. and you had mentioned that everyone is unanimous on the plan. i wonder if they were unanimous on the premise itself for this exchange, because there's a difference between being in favor of what we're doing and approving the plan once it's decided that we're doing it. i'd be curious to know about that. but during the course of this, i wonder did we promise any retaliation if our soldier was harmed in any way? did we let our enemy know that if this soldier was harmed in any way, that there would be retaliation of some sort? >> if the taliban -- >> in the negotiations, if -- i'll call him by name -- sergeant bergdahl. if harm came to him under their care, would there be any

retaliation from the united states of america? >> well, let me ask steve preston. he was there during the negotiation. >> i would say, sir, that in the discussions of the exchange, the focus was specifically on the logistics -- >> so no is the answer. you did not say, if you a harm him in any way -- >> the entire effort was to engine it as to minimize the chance of harm. >> obviously we didn't say that there would be some retaliation if he was harmed. now secretary, you before said that he was a p.o.w. you said that here today that he was a p.o.w. now we are hearing it is a different name. but regardless, so do we know, did his captors adhere to the geneva convention, like we do? >> when i referenced him a p.o.w., he was a prisoner of war. he was a prisoner, of war. >> i'm okay with that. >> the technicality of what general counsel is talking

about, that's why i asked the general counsel to make sure the technical -- >> to my question, do they adhere to the geneva convention as we do? >> i think it remains to be seen how he was treated. but there's a serious question. >> i appreciate that. are you familiar with our policy for compassionate release of detainees, either of you? if you're not, i can inform you because i served as surgeon at abu ghraib prison in '05-'06. we had a program for some of our worst ennemies, if they were to be fatally ill we'd release them to their families. called a compassionate release. this is a policy of the united states. did we ask them for a compassionate release if indeed our soldier was so sick that we had to move so quickly, did we ask them for a compassionate release in the manner that we perform as the united states of america? >> not to my knowledge.

>> thank you. so we do -- >> i might add though, congressman -- >> yes, sir. >> the taliban, as you know, you have some experience, which i thank you for that service. they don't play by the same rules. >> that's my point. that is exactly my point, mr. secretary. i thank you for verifying for the case i'm trying to make. we play by a set of rules as a decent people. and we are not dealing with decent people here. yet we acted as though we were. and we acted as though we were releasing decent people. and we are not. and i would ask you, does anyone here really think that the world is a safer place after we've made this trade? and i want to ask one other question. we have five american casualties yesterday. what if one of those was captured by the taliban? would we be back in qatar at the negotiation table? >> well, you know. you served.

you heard all morning, we don't leave anybody behind. we do what we have to do. >> there's several ways of not leaving someone behind. >> well, that's right. but you don't send them chocolates and say send them over. tough business. tough business. >> i agree. thank you. i yield back. >> walorski. >> is the administration considering the transfer or release of other taliban or afghan detainees, even those previously considered not a candidate for release. >> we're also assessing possible detainee -- >> right. but i've got a "new york times" article right here that talks about six being considered right now to go to uruguay. so you are then considering additional transports and transfers of these other detainees at guantanamo? >> we're always looking at this. it's not new. >> i know. i'm very aware.

>> the bush administration transferred farmar -- far more than obama did. >> are you looking at afghanistan -- >> i'm not going to get into the security arrangements here. >> just hypothetically, if you're releasing anymore afghan detainees, are they going directly back to afghanistan after the international law expires and we no longer have, as mr. preston was saying, in a year when the international law expires that we're holding these detainees under, do they go right back to afghanistan? conceivably? could they? >> i'm not going to respond to any specific actions. but counsel may want to. >> i may have misunderstood. i did not -- i don't believe i said that the conflict would expire at the end of the year. just with that clarification. >> you made a comment about the international law they're being held under by which we're actually detaining them. >> right. as belligerents in an armed conflict. >> and that goes on -- if we're completely pulled out of the conflict and are no longer involved except for minimal

troop level or in 2016 when we're completely pulled out -- >> there will come a point in time where the conflict ends. if there is not an alternative basis for which to hold them, the law of war basis would no longer be available to us. >> right. what is that point in time? is that point in time when we pull out our -- on the drop date that the president made, say by the end of 2015-'16 we're going to be completely pulled out, they're going to be on their own? >> when an armed conflict comes to an end is a rather complex question. you can -- one could answer it as my predecessor did in terms of the degradation of the enemy -- this was with reference to al qaeda -- to the point where they no longer present a threat. our view -- i think it is reflected in the president's speech -- our country is strongest when both of the political branches focus on issues such as the end of a

conflict. >> yeah. >> my concern is, we're getting ourselves in a position because we've made an exception to a law, that we're getting into a corner where we could conceivably be releasing afghans from guantanamo, and by whatever means or for whatever measure, sending them right back into afghanistan. is afghanistan -- is afghanistan on the list of potential countries that can even receive gitmo prisoners? >> i think you described -- whatever the arrangement, it would have to meet the statutory requirements the 1035-b which is to say the risk is properly mitigated. >> i understand the list. so right now, based upon that list, and you guys are considering, and looking at and evaluating all the time and looking at this list of potential countries, obviously qatar is a country who said we will receive and be able to

further detain these people, is afghanistan on there, or when the drawdown continues to happen, is there going to be a point where afghanistan is going to be free and clear because we're pulling our troops out, they're on their own, they're handling themselves? are they on that list now to be able to receive prisoners, or is there going to come a time when they're on the list to receive their people? >> i don't know. i mean, we've had -- detainees have gone to, i think, over 15 countries. >> i've seen the list. you certainly have the list of potential countries that are available. we've had conversations in other hearings about, for example -- >> you asked in the future -- >> right now, is afghanistan on the list now where they can receive people back from gitmo? >> ma'am, i'm not familiar with the list per se. >> is afghanistan a country that could be considered -- >> afghanistan could be a candidate to receive detainees -- >> but it's not now? is it currently a country that we say, meets the parameters and we could take afghans from gitmo

and send them back to afghanistan, if they met the criteria, and we're saying afghanistan does meet the criteria, does afghanistan meet the criteria today? for example, there's obviously a list of six going to uruguay -- or i'm just asking if afghanistan in its current situation -- >> as far as i know, afghanistan would be a potential recipient country. >> okay. thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. bridenstine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, did i hear correctly earlier, you mentioned that when you were making the decision to release the five members of the taliban, that you did not take into consideration whether or not they would return to the field of battle? >> no, i didn't say that. we took that into consideration. we took everything into consideration. yes? >> was your assessment the best assessment from the people who advise you, was that assessment

that they would or would not return to the field of battle? >> the assessment was, first, we looked at the threat. whether they would or not. we can't predict. >> you can make an assessment. i'm sure somebody gave an assessment. read this committee a little bit ago and i don't think you were here on the latest intelligence community assessment on the threats. i asked for this from general clapper. this is the most recent intelligence community assessment. threat, if returned to afghanistan, pakistan, after they -- after the one year in qatar. says, should they return and reintegrate with the taliban, their focus would almost be on taliban efforts inside of afghanistan, not a threat to the homeland. >> will we have troops in afghanistan at that time? >> well, 12 months from may 31st. so yes, we'll have troops. >> so they would pose a threat to american people?

>> well, let me finish this. >> hold on. let me move to mr. preston. i've only got three minutes left. >> i'm giving you -- if you want information, i'm giving you with the ic says. as your question. >> i understand that. i think i got the answer i was looking for. >> well, you didn't hear it all. >> my understanding -- i'm a navy pilot, i flew combat in iraq and afghanistan. my understanding is there are really two types of law, there's a law of war, a law of armed conflict, if you will, which is international law, then there's a law of peace, which is how we handle things domestically. under the law of war, correct me if i'm wrong, but we don't detain people for rehabilitation, and we don't detain people for purposes of, you know, punishing them. we detain them to keep them off the field of battle, is that correct, under the laws of international conflict? >> as i understand it, when they're held under those laws, it's for that purpose. >> it is to keep them off the field of battle. so if there is a judgment that

there is a chance that these folks could go back into the field of battle, and we still have an authorization for use of military force indicating that we still are at war, the judgment, whether these people are going to go back and harm our troops is pretty important, is that correct? >> the way i would answer that is to say that it is clear that we have, and had the authority to detain these people. the judgment to transfer them to the custody of another country is one that is governed in substantial measure by the ndaa provision and a judgment by the president. >> i might just add, congressman, in the second sentence of this intelligence community report, to answer your question, it says, a few new taliban leaders, these five, if they would return to the taliban, in afghanistan, no matter how senior, will not

appreciably change the threat to american forces, the afghan people, and the afghan army. >> is that in a physical sense or morale sense? if you look at what the taliban is putting out right now, they're declaring victory on this. are you aware of this? >> well, i'm aware of a lot of what the taliban says. we can't control what the taliban says. >> by releasing -- yes, you can. because you didn't have to release these five people. by releasing them, you have created in essence a victory for the taliban. it is being used as propaganda against this country, and ultimately, i think you are aware, that these people are likely to return to the field of battle. and our troops are going to be in harm's way because of it. >> congressman, i just gave you the best intelligence community assessment, what they say about that. this is an imperfect business. if we want our prisoner of war back, we have to make some accommodations to that. we did it with a substantial mitigation of risk. we thought this was the smartest, wisest, most responsible thing that we could do to protect our people, get

our prisoner back. >> the taliban feels the same way. >> there's nothing i can do about that. they're going to be predictable, i suspect, and try to use this. but you asked whether that's physical. or is it a morale boost. i think the first thing we ought to look at, is this a physical threat that they represent. and you just heard what the -- >> the morale boost turns into a physical threat. >> well, it's an imperfect world, congressman, and you know that. >> gentleman's time is expired. mr. burn? >> thank you, mr. secretary. i've been watching you, you've been answering questions about the consultation with congress. i know you're sensitive to that. i was wondering if at any time during this process, did you, yourself, recommend or suggest to anyone at the white house, the nsc, any of the parties, any of the people involved that they

should consult or notify the congress prior to may 31st? >> congressman, through this process, which i have in front of me, the deputies' meetings at the white house, the principal meetings, which i'm a principal, all of these things were discussed. notification, the risks which we've talked about today. i support the decision that was made on notification. i didn't particularly like it, i think a lot of people didn't, but we felt in the interest of not risking any further -- bowe bergdahl and the opportunity to get him back, and maybe even his life, this was the smartest way to do it. >> well, i understand it was discussed. but did you yourself suggest or recommend that some notification or consultation be made prior to may 31st? >> we all made different suggestions, recommendations to

at least exploring what happened if we don't, should we? what's the downside of that? what's the downside if we do? all these things were -- >> so you did. >> we all talked about it. it wasn't a recommendation. we went around the table and talked about it, all of us. >> you suggested maybe we should talk to congress and give them some notification? >> everybody -- >> everybody -- >> we talked about it, look at it, go up and down. no formal recommendation was made by me. at the end, we discussed it. we came -- all came out in the same place. that the risk was just too great. we didn't want to take the risk. >> mr. preston, let me ask you a question. i was interested in the colloquy you had with several people over this constitutional issue. is it your position, is it the position of the obama administration that after the president of the united states signs a law, and it becomes law, that he can on his own after consultation with legal counsel, the justice department, whoever, say, i don't have to comply with a particular provision of that law without going to court first?

>> i can only speak for myself. but i think that the president may act in the exercise of his constitutional authority as he understands it, and as circumstances demand, without necessarily going to court. >> how is that different from the position that people in the nixon administration took during watergate, that the president does it, it's legal? how is that different? >> i wouldn't even know where to begin to answer that. >> well, begin with the beginning. can the president of the united states decide he can do whatever he wants to do, because he thinks he's got some constitutional protection? despite a clear provision in the law he can't do that? >> this president faced a service member in peril in activity and exercised a constitutional duty and authority to recover that service member. in circumstances in which it was the judgment of the policy, the

leading policy makers of this country, that the circumstances were not going to permit the 30-day notification. that's a very concrete response to what was a very compelling situation. >> i understand that you're saying that under these particular circumstances. you're not saying that it's a blanket thing. but you think under certain circumstances, the president of the united states, after he has signed a law and it has become law, can decide certain parts of it he doesn't have to comply with, without going to a court and getting a determination about his constitutional basis for doing so? >> there are circumstances, and this was one. >> one final question for you, secretary hagel. could you please provide us assurance that there will be no unlawful command influence related to the case of sergeant bergdahl? >> absolutely. i said it here in answer to a couple of questions before.

>> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. i want to echo the remarks. appreciate the panelists for being here today. and your leadership in the dod. and mr. secretary, thank you for your courageous and honorable service in vietnam. as a former soldier myself, i'll start by saying that, the ethos that we leave no soldier behind is very important to the profession of arms. still, i have deep concerns about the judgment in this particular case. and i want to associate myself with the remarks of miss gabbard earlier. first, some context. i must say i respectfully disagree with the administration's decision to keep troops in afghanistan for two more years. i think that we've largely accomplished what we set out to do. decimating al qaeda and preventing them from having a safe haven in afghanistan. i certainly would stipulate that we have an enduring national security interest to make sure that that remains the case. i don't think we need to leave

troops on the ground to do that. i believe we can do that from over the horizon with special operations troops, arabian sea or indian ocean. evidently the administration agrees, because the administration is talking about departing in two years. you know, if the administration believes that we have an interest in continuing to train the afghanistan forces, i don't see why we can't bring them to the united states of america. and train them here. and by the way, the afghanistan people should pay for that. but, you know, we are where we are today, and that is that the administration wants to keep u.s. troops there for two more years. and given that, i question the judgment of this particular decision. and i know we've been over -- i'm not going to ask to rehash a lot of the ground we've been on, but i do want to add this point, that at any point in the negotiations, sir, did it come up that we would want to keep these five detainees in qatar until the last american troop comes home?

>> congressman, that was not the nature of the discussion. it was with reference to the period of time for which the security assurances would be in place. >> well, listen, i certainly caught the earlier remark that said, we weren't holding the best cards. i get that. it doesn't appear we were holding any cards. i'm not sure our negotiating position, we gave up very high-level commanders. it doesn't appear to us that we had any kind of leverage. and i just refuse to accept that we had no leverage at all. i mean, they evidently had been wanting to get these five leaders back. and i think at the very minimum, we would have pressed for the point that these five commanders would not return to afghanistan until the last american troop returned back to our soil. let me say this, that i'm interested to know in the best military judgment of our commanders, our ground commander in afghanistan, the centcom commander and chairman of the joint chiefs.

i guess i'm curious why the chairman's not with us today. but i'm interested in their assessment and their go/no-go recommendation. >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for your distinguished service. i know about it, and we appreciate it. chairman dempsey is in london. he is convening a group of chief military defense officers, counterparts of his from nato. this was a conference that was planned months and months ago. he considered not going. since chairman mckeon asked not to have any uniformed military at this table, i told general dempsey not to come back, because he was not invited to sit here. as to his role, i said in my

testimony, as well as the vice chairman, who has been very active on this, admiral winifeld, i think has been in every briefing for the house and senate the last two weeks, they have been very intricately involved in all the meetings, all the counseling, all the steps, signed off, supported. they have not been left out. in any dimension of this. and the vice chairman, as i said, has actually been in all the meetings. >> so i'm understanding that both the vice chairman and chairman recommended go on this mission? >> yes. >> what about the ground commander and centcom commander? >> they were notified on the 27th of may. general dunford and general austin, their awareness of something going on was there. but again, to keep this as close as we could, they were not

informed until four days before the specific operational plans and decisions, until four days before the operation. i believe that i'm right on those dates. >> thank you, gentlemen. we'll now move to chairman mccall. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, mr. preston. i chair the homeland security committee, so i look at it from that vantage point. i do have concerns that this move, this swap empowers and emboldens our enemies. one can only look at what omar is saying about this, when he celebrates. this is a huge triumph in his words. a colossal victory. for the first time we've negotiated with the taliban as equals. and we gave them everything they asked for, the dream team. these are the heads of intelligence, military, with long ties to osama bin laden. when i was in iraq last month, i

met with general demford and ambassador cunningham. as we were standing in front of the afghans, i'm concerned about the influence the five could have on the process. as the ambassador told me, as we withdraw, his biggest fears will be a vacuum and then we'll be hit again. mr. secretary, can you tell me how this move is in our best interest in terms of our security? >> to start with, as i have covered this ground this morning, we got our one remaining prisoner back. i don't think that's an incidental accomplishment. second, as has been quoted here, here a couple of hours ago, the former central command commander, marine general jim maddos, what he said this sunday -- last sunday, about one of the

significant features of this return was, it frees up our forces in afghanistan to not be concerned, and not have any adjustments or realities or limitations, to always be mindful of trying to get our prisoner back. and i think, again, i don't think this is anything to be diminished either, as noted by the congressman, the fact is, our military men and women know that we'll go after them. we won't leave them behind. >> my time's limited. but one of these five, they've already come out publicly and said, i want to go to afghanistan and kill americans. that concerns me. and these guys over there reviving the movement, if you will, filling the vacuum, then hitting the homeland again, as we saw pre-9/11, there's an old axiom in foreign policy, and you

served in the senate foreign affairs committee, armed services for a long time, that we don't negotiate with terrorists. the haqqani network, as i understand it, were responsible for holding the sergeant captive. now, isn't it true that the haqqani network has been designated a foreign terrorist organization? >> they are. >> if so, did we not just negotiate with the terrorists? >> no. we negotiated with the government of qatar. the taliban made the deal. the haqqani network is essentially, as far as we can tell, a subcontractor to -- and they do it not just with the taliban, but they do it with different groups. >> let's be -- let's be clear. so we negotiated with the middle man, the qatari government, with

the haqqani network, who held them captive, held the sergeant captive, and that haqqani -- >> it was the taliban that represented -- that were represented. >> but ultimately it was with the haqqani network which is a foreign terrorist organization. >> well, as i said, yes, they're associated in different ways. we know that. as i said, i think the best way i can describe it is essentially a subcontractor. >> the haqqani network, as i understand it, is the most lethal force over there right now. >> it is. >> it is the biggest threat of coming into afghanistan. >> and after we withdraw and fill in the vacuum, and from a homeland security standpoint potentially hitting americans -- >> the haqqani network didn't have any role in this deal. preston can give you the specifics of this. >> in my limited time, there's a "new york times" story about a memo from guantanamo transfer to susan rice.

what role does the white house play in your determinations regarding the release of detainees from guantanamo? >> i have the authority and responsibility to make the decisions and notify congress on whether they're going to be transferred or not. >> does it stop with you, or does it go to the white house? >> well, the president signs off as well. but you asked what role they play. my assessments are made based on, yes, the national security council, because the subcommittee that you chair, the secretary of homeland security is part of that. integral, important part of that, for obvious reasons. so is the secretary of state. so is the national director of intelligence. so is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so is the president's national security adviser. sure, i want all that. and they all signed off on this decision, by the way. i've got to have all that, because all of them have different pieces. along with our own internal dod pieces.

>> i understand that. i see my time is expired. thank you so much for being here today. >> thank you. >> all time is expired. we thank the gentlemen. they've been very gracious with their time this morning and this afternoon. and we thank you for your service. and this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> coming up on c span 3 tonight, the confirmation hearing for the nominees for qatar, iraq and egypt. and in a little less than two hours, a hearing on sport security. in four hours, a conversation on u.s. plans to withdraw military forces from afghanistan. >> one of the things people don't always recognize is that during the war of 1812, it was fought from 1812 until after

1814, early 1815, and it was really about the america reestablishing its independence against the british. this was sort of our second american revolution, and this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem. >> the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored and there's a whole bottom section that was reconstructed. when the flag was moved into the new exhibition space, there was a deliberate decision not to do that again and what we wanted was that the flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it's tattered, it's torn, but it still survives. the message is both the survival of both the country and the flag. we're not trying to make it look pretty. we're trying to make it look

like its endured its history and can still celebrate its history. >> this year marks 1812. learn more about the flag that francis scott key wrote about. sunday night at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv. >> the president's nominee to the u.s. ambassador to qatar says the u.s. is cautiously optimistic about how that country will handle the five taliban pretty much ners -- prisoners swapped for bowe bergdahl. the nominee for ambassador to qatar testified at a confirmation hearing along with the ambassador to iraq, egypt and honduras.

our first panel today we have nominees for u.s. kbors to egypt, iraq, and qatar. in egypt on sunday, field marshall cisi was sworn into office. i remain concerned about the state of media repression in egypt, intimidation of activists. that said, the people of egypt have taken to the streets to protest successive governments and there's no reason not to expect protests again if the sisi government is does not to meet its promises. when it comes to assistance, continued u.s. aid must be based

on the hoe taltity of our shared interests that now includes the egyptian government take steps toward a sustainable position. that is not only my view but it's also the omnibus appropriations act. in iraq, while political leaders are deal making. the conflict continues to surge in western iraq as a spillover from syria has enable the islamic state in syria to take hold. we must support iraqi security forces. syria's questions remain unanswered. iraq's role in syria, iranian influence in iraq and the commitment of the iraqi

government to protect the residents of camp liberty until we can conclude a resettlement process. qatar presents another set of issues. i know that there are many who have questions about the context of the negotiations, the qatari's government role in the talks. its multifast set strategic importance goes far beyond the bowe bergdahl bd- taliban deal. this is not the time to debate those terms. it is time to confirm an ambassador who will enforce the terms. i look forward to hearing from you with what you see as your role in qatar broadly as well as on this issue. if confirmed, i'm monitoring

this commitment and i want to make it clear that congress will play an active oversight role on this issue. that said, i look forward to hearing from the nominee. with that, let me turned to senator corker for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks to all three of you for your desire to serve in this way. we obviously have three very qualified nominees and going to very important places, and i think to a lesser degree in qatar but certainly to a degree there are two issues that overwhelmingly will affect the surface of both ambassador jones and bekroft and that is the black hole that we have right now in syria and i know that both of you have already experienced that in the countries in which you are serving right now and the fact that we have never really put in place any kind of policy or strategy or even laid out what our objectives are clearly and

that's obviously having a very destabilizing effect on iraq and jordan where both of you have been. we also have a situation where there's just no regional strategy. you know, administration, unfortunately, continues to hide behind, you know, classified briefings and those kind of things, and is unable to layout a coherent strategy for the region, and so again all three of you enter places where that has created significant difficulties and again i thank you for your desire to serve. egypt since 2011, there's been no stabilization there. the country is really no better off relative to many of the issues that we care about than it was. i do have hope, maybe greater hopes than our chairman just mentioned, for egypt going forward and i no he that they are very important relationship

for our country. iraq, we're continuing to read daily, the devolution that's happening on the ground. it's very parent. in qatar because of our inability or lack of desire or just whatever in taking a lead relative to the syria -- syrian opposition, qatar obviously has taken a role thavltd unhealthy. i understand that may be tapering back some now but that's a very important relationship. so i look forward to our questions and answers. i want to thank you each of you again for the lives you have led that have made you so qualified for the positions that you are ascending to and i thank you for being here today. >> thank you, senator corker. let me welcome our first panel nominees, all decorated career foreign service officers.

none is a stranger to the demands of serving abroad. they are robert stephen becroft, to be ambassador to egypt, and stuart jones to iraq, and dana smith to be ambassador for qatar. he is a career foreign service officer, the rank of minister counsel and currently serves in baghdad. stuart e. jones is no stranger as a career foreign service officer. he's currently serving as our ambassador in jordan. dana shell smith is truly a global diplomat. served throughout the world in her capacity as a public affairs officer. she too is a career foreign

service officer. currently serves as senior adviser to the under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs. so let me thank you. let me join senator corker for your service both past and moving forward in the future. we have a large audience than we normally have for nominee so i assume that maybe there may be some family members or friends, if they are here with you, we would urge you to induce them to the committee when you have your time to testify. we understand and appreciate that families are a big part of the sacrifice and the service and we honor their willingness to have you be willing to serve our country as they themselves face sacrifices as a result of it. your full statements will be included in the record without objection, so we ask you to summarize your openings in about five minutes or so so we can enter into a dialogue with you and with that, we'll start off with you, ambassador beecroft

and ambassador jones and then move to ms. smith. >> thank you very much. i'm honored to appear to you as the president's nominee as the u.s. ambassador to the arab republic of egypt. if confirmed, i look forward to working closely with you and other members of congress to advance the interests of the united states. i'm also pleased to share this hearing with my colleagues. i look forward to working closely with them on the many issues facing the united states in the middle east. mr. chairman, i've spent much of my career working in the middle east, including assignments in syria and saudi arabia and as ambassador to jordan and iraq. my experience has made me aqutly aware of egypt's importance inside and outside the region. as the most populous country,

it's an important country. egypt is the third largest market for u.s. goods and services in the middle east, and the united states is the second largest source of foreign direct investment in egypt. approximately 8% of global maritime commerce flows through the suez canal every year and u.s. flagged vessels moved over 1.9 billion tons of cargo through the suez in 2013. i cannot stress enough the importance of egypt's upholding of its peace treaty with israel. after repeated conflicts beginning inch 1948, the two advise have not seen war since 1973. conditions in egypt thus have implications for the security of israel and our allies in the arab world and beyond. increased instability in egypt

would encourage migrant flight. it would threaten global commerce with an ensuing ripple effect on international economies. for these reasons and more we have crucial interests in egypt, preserving regional peace and stability, creating economic prosperity and increased opportunities for foreign investment, and building inclusive democratic institutions and civil societies that undermine violent extremism. as president obama said in his may 28 address in west point, support for human rights and democracy goes beyond idealism. it is a matter of national security. while views may differ, there is agreement that egypt's success as is vooittle important to the united states. if confirmed, i commit to work

with congress to help achieve this goal. i want to commend the american personnel, local staff at our u.s. mission who have been carrying out cageous and difficult world during this time. 12 cabinet level agencies at the mission are advancing our national security objectives, protecting the welfare of american citizens and business and pursuing our work with the government and people with egypt. as confirmed, i look forward to joining in their efforts. it is the distinct honor to have been nominated by president obama and to serve as u.s. ambassador to egypt and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. chairman, i look forward to answering any questions you or members of the committee may have. thank you very much. >> ambassador jones. >> thank you, mr. chairman. rampinging -- ranking member corker, members of the foreign relations committee.

i'm deeply honored today to appear as president obama's nominee to be the united states ambassador to the republic of iraq. i'm grateful to the president and to the secretary for their confidence in me. if confirmed, i will work closely with you to advance u.s. goals in iraq. i look forward to building on the excellent work of my predecessor and friend, steve beecroft. i'm delighted to share this panel with dana smith. with your permission, mr. chairman, i would like to induce my daughter, dorothy jones, a rising sophomore at duke university. she flew up to be with me here today. my wife and barbara and sons are in iman. i'm grateful my family has been game for every new busting. i'm grateful for the opportunity to serve. one of our largest and most

complex missions. i've served in iraq twice and as director for iraq affairs on the national security counsel. these jobs have helped me to prepare for the complexity and challenges of the assignment ahead. we are all familiar with the history of iraq's past decade. it is impossible to serve in iraq without recalling and honoring the sacrifice and achievement of our u.s. servicemen and women and civilians. more than 4,000 lost their lives there. but they also put an end to the oppression and regional threat of the is a -- saddam hussein regime. today we're committed to building a strong iraq. iraq has indeed made important economic and democratic process. it is now engaged in a fierce

battle against islamic state of iraq, and one of the most dangerous groups in the world. monday's attack on mosul highlights just how dangerous this group is. we will continue to work with our international partners to try to meet the needs of those who have been displaced and we will look for ways to support the government and the security forces in their -- in their conflict with isil. overall, violence in iraq has reached levels not seen since the height of the u.s. surge in 2007. suicide invests and vehicle bomb attacks are averaging nearly 70 per month since the beginning of this year. the united states has taken important steps to help iraq combat this shared enemy. we've provided urnlly needed military equipment and the iraqis have told us that our

equipment and advice are making a critical difference. i would like to thank this panel for making these transfers possible. in addition to military equipment transfers, we've strengthened our information-sharing relationships and are developing programs to improve border security. we've also initiated a high-level dialogue between our senior military leadership and key iraqi military commanders. security assistance however is only one element of our assistance. and it is connected to intense political and economic engagement. the united states has also encouraged iraq to adopt a holistic strategy to isolate isil from the population and to develop a strategy for sustainable security. this strategy will require continued engagement between iraq's political leaders, sunni tribal leaders and others. from a political standpoint,

iraq's successful national election on april 30 was a victory for efforts to strengthen iraq's democratic institutions. while prime minister mall la -- malachi fell short. it will be up to iraq's political leaders to form a government of the will of the people. despite its challenges, its tremendous economic growth over the last decade has been impressive. it's averaged 6.5% growth since 2005. it's now producing 3.2 million barrels of oil a day. the united states and iraq have partnered to share best practices on fossil fuel production and exports.

the government also faces a challenge in its natural resources in distributing the wealth created by its resources to its population and to use its oil wealth to promote growth in other sectors. iraq's economic growth offers exciting opportunities for u.s. firms, particularly in key sectors such as infrastructure, development and construction. if confirmed, i look forward to promoting secretary kerry's shared prosperity agenda as ambassador to iraq. mr. chairman, as i've discussed, iraq posts a challenging security environment. if confirmed as ambassador, i will bear responsibility for the safety of all u.s. personnel in iraq, including at embassy baghdad and our couldnnsulatcon. if confirmed, i will work close with our security team on the ground as well as our diplomatic security professionals back here in washington to ensure that our people are well protected. this will be my highest priority

as well as to protect the safety of american citizens in iraq. since u.s. troops withdrew from iraq in 2011, the embassy and consulates have significantly reduced our staffing. as of june 2014, we have approximately 5,300 staff. if confirmed, i will continue to examine staffing levels to ensure that we have the appropriate number of personnel to carry out our mission. our diplomatic efforts are supported by highly skilled team of individuals at the embassy in iraq, and they represent a wide range of u.s. department's and agencies. this whole of government approach allows us to bring the very best experts our government has to offer and address some of the challenge i've raised with you today. i like to thank everyone at the embassy in iraq for their service as well as the leadership back here in washington, including this committee, that makes this level of interagency coordination

possible. our continued success in iraq depends on continued collaboration. mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. i appreciate and value this committee's oversight of our efforts in iraq and if confirmed, i look forward to welcoming you and your respective staff members to baghdad. your continued engagement on the policy issues that we face in iraq are a vital element in ensuring our success. i would be pleased to respond to any questions we have. >> ms. smith. will you put your microphone please. >> this is my first time doing this. chairman mennen did he see. thank you for the opportunity to appear for you today as the president's nominee to be the u.s. ambassador to the state of qatar. i'm extremely grateful to president obama and to secretary kerry for their confidence in me. if confirmed i look forward to representing the american people and to working with this

committee and other interested members of congress to advance u.s. interests in qatar, and it's a privilege to share this panel with stu jones and steve beecroft. it's been an honor to serve as a foreign service officer since 1992 and to use my reaming only experience and the arabic language in a variety of assignments. well the foreign service introduced me to my husband. i'm delighted that my aunt and uncle and so many of my friends could be here as well. qatar plays a growing role in the international community with influence that goes beyond its size. we share a productive relationship on key issues. they have been extremely supportive of our commitment to

find a solution to the israel and palistinan conflict. defense cooperation is a central pillar of our partnership and it's best reflected of the qatar's hosting of the headquarters and the combined air center. the renewal in december of 2013 of our defense cooperation agreement is a further testament to our enduring security partnership. if confirmed, i will work to deepen our military ties and expand our regional security cooperation. we have an active and productive dialogue on both counterterrorism and proceed live rags of weapons of mass destruction. it is a founding member of the global counterterrorism forum. these efforts take on increased importance of course. we're working together to improve the capacity of qatar's

counterterrorist financing regime and to disrupt illicit cash flows. the united states is also continuing efforts with qatar to support the moderate opposition in syria. qatar believes as we do, and we share the view that the crisis in syria should be resolved through a negotiated political solution. we are working closely with regional partners to maximize the impact of our collective efforts. qatar has also publicly welcomed the join plan of action reached between iran and the p 5-1 on iran's nuclear program. as you know, qatar played an instrumental role in recovering sergeant bowe bergdahl. their efforts are a testament to our partnership. the u.s. has and will continue to coordinate closely with

qatar. we are confident that the security measures that have been put in place, including restrictions placed on the activities of the individuals will substantially mitigate any threat that the individuals may pose to our national security. the emir personally provided his assurances to the president and the administration is confident that the qataris have the capacity and will to deliver on the commitments made. but let me be clear. if confirmed, i will work each day to ensure that these commitments are upheld. i will consult regularly with the members of this committee as we move forward on this issue. our thriving commercial relationship with qatar continues to grow, presenting tremendous opportunities for american business. qatar is one of our most important trading partners in the region, importing over $5 billion in u.s. goods in 2013. if confirmed, i will make it my priority to advocate for u.s. companies vigorously.

qatar also hosts six branches of u.s. universities. if confirmed, i will work to expand our cultural and educational partnerships to promote enduring ties between our people for the next generation. at a u.s. mission with employees from a variety of u.s. government agencies, my first priority if confirmed would remain at all times protecting the safety and security of the dedicated men and women at our mission, as well as of all americans living, working, and traveling in qatar. chairman, members of the committee, it has been my privilege and great honor to spend my entire adult life in the service of our country. if confirmed, i welcome your views and insights on qatar and the region. i would be pleased to answer any questions you might have for me today. thank you. >> thank you all for your testimony and again welcome to your family and friends. let me start with you, ambassador beecroft, well, let me ask you, are all three of an

overarching question. will you make yourselves available if confirmed to the committee and answer inquiries from the committee while you are in post? >> yes. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> absolutely. >> okay. ambassador beecroft, you know, you are going from one difficult assignment to another one. that's why we have some extraordinary persons like yourself, but speaking for myself as a chairman, let me just say if we are going to continue to see mass death penalty sentences, if we are going to see massive arrests of the young people who in essence created the situation in tahir square that ultimately led to where president sisi can be

elected. if the president believes it is sufficient for the united states relationship, then there will be a rude awakening, i hope that in your role as our ambassador that you'll be able to relay to president sisi that we need a broader agenda to see progress moving forward. not just because that is my view, but the fy-14 appropriations legislation contains certification requirements to release the rest of egypt's fy-14 assistance, including that quote, a newly elect elected government is taking steps to be run democratically.

>> how could we make progress to create the political space for the egyptian government to address some of these concerns that by law they must do if we are ultimately going to continue our assistance? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i agree with you 100% that we want to have the strongest broadest possible relationship with egypt and we want an egypt that is stable and secure because it has in respects fundamental human rights democracy and because it builds a prosperous economy. if confirmed, i will engage on all these issues with the egyptian government, and work with them to partner and develop the economy, to build human rights, expand those rights, to stop practices such as the mass trials that you've referred to, which we have condemned and to ensure that justice is individualized. to ensure there is a society and

country and government that the egyptian people buy into, that they see their interests are best represented inside the democratic process and not outside of it is that will lead to fundamental long term stability. egypt does have promising prospects. it's demonstrated at time that it can function as an emerging economy. it can havele real gdp growth of 7%. we need to build upon that. in addition to those concerns, you talked about the economic questions and i'm concern by what i read, president sisi's statements where it sounds like he thinks that greater state intervention in the economy is going to create the opportunities that egyptians need, and i'm not quite sure having just returned from the gulf region that the -- our golf partners who have actually been helpful to the egyptians will have that view.

what messaging will we be giving as it relates to how this economy can reviev itself and grow? >> thank you very much. it's of course very much in our interest to see egypt to build its economy, strengthen its economy. it's within our interests to encourage the economic reforms for the economy to progress. i will note that egypt has a number of economic advantages that we can build upon. it has a relatively well-developed infrastructure, specifically telecommunications, roads, supports. it has access to markets because of its proximity in europe, asia, africa. it has labor that should attract vex as well, and it has natural resources, particularly natural gas that can be developed. so there is the basis for a strong economy. we have to encourage the reforms that will attract investors into the country and to target the

assistance so that it addresses the parts of the economy that need to be addressed, in particularly reforms. >> ambassador jones, you know, we had prime minister malachi last year. it was a difficult meeting. i don't know whether or not he will actually be the prime minister again. i guess my many accounts, he may very well ultimately put the coalition necessary to do that. but as i said to ambassador beecroft as it relates to our relationship with the egyptian government, in this case the iraqis must understand that the use of barrel bombs, that the overflights and transiting of airspace by iran, sending troops and military equipment into

syria, with impunity, and the lives of the people at camp liberty, until they are resettled, is going to be part by what this committee judges as it relates to future arms sales, as it relates to our relationship. so i would like to hear from you. we understand the importance. we honor the lives of those lost in pursuit of a more democratic iraq from the united states and an enormous national treasure, but there has to be some change in the course of events here, including having a government that is more inclusive in which every sunni season an enemy of the state. there are many sunnis who want to be part of iraq as a nation, but they have to be included as well. can you tell me about what you will be messaging there as it relates to these issues? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me take your last point

first, which is, of course, we completely agree that for iraq to succeed, the different political elements, the sectarian groups need to come together and create a shared vision. they need to create a shared vision for their national security. they need to pull together to address the terrorist threat posed by isil, and although the news from mosul is very bad, i think one positive aspect of this may be that the groups are coming together to address this challenge, at least we're seeing signs of that in the last 24 hours. in regards to the barrel bombs, the use of barrel bombs is completely unacceptable. it's an indiscriminate weapon against civilians and cannot be tolerated. this is something that my colleague steve beecroft has raised with the senior levels of the iraqi government. there has been an instruction handed down through the military that barrel bombs will not be

used and we've also heard from military contacts that they recognize that instruction. in regards to the overflights, this is an issue that remains a problem. we are concerned that iran is supplying the bashir regime with overflights with iraq. i will continue to look for ways to stop this traffic. on the issue of camp liberty, i know this is an issue of particular concern and it's a very important issue. when i was the deputy chief of mission in iraq in 2010 and 2011, we innocenced a terrible attack on camp ashraf in which many people were killed and many wounded. i think the steps we've taken since then are quite positive. moving the residents has improved their security. the government of iraq has also

responded to our requests and other requests to improve the security around camp liberty and that's encouraging. but the solution is to remove the members to get them to a safer place. they will not be safe until they are outside iraq. our government is taking the lead on this. the special envoy for the secretary is meeting with representatives from countries around the world and asking them to take the members and we also have a team in baghdad working toward receiving a group of those here in the united states and i think this is the best solution we can take. >> two final points. i don't want to hear iraq tell us that we need actionable intelligence. when we have it, we'll provide it. but they have a responsibility in doing random surveillance of overflights and that is an excuse that is unacceptable.

secondly i agree with you that resettlement of the meks is the ultimate solution. i have hoped and end couraged united states to accept some members, and be an example to the rest of the world. i may not be from the south, but i think i'll be more genteel. so again i want to thank all three of you. ambassador jones, you know, i visited ambassador beecroft and i've been to iraq like many of us many times, and today when you are there, unlike jordan where you've just -- where you still are, it feels like a

vacant, deserted lot relative to our emphasis on it. it feels like we've checked the box and move on, and that we really have lost influence. that's -- i think everybody acknowledges that but we just haven't been really robust at all levels relative to our efforts there. we had a great conversation yesterday, and we talk a little bit about the lack of the sofa and the fact that our troops are gone and that's contributed to the lack of influence in a pretty big way. you've had two tours there and i mentioned i was going to bring this up just to kind of set the record straight. many of us have felt and maybe even after you say what you say may still feel that one of reasons that iraq is the way that it is is that we, you know, didn't leave behind some presence, and that we actually -- this was actually what the administration wanted to occur.

you have a very different perspective of that, and i thought it don't take too long if you will, but i think it would be good for you to share your thoughts relative to why we do not have a presence in iraq today. >> thank you, senator. as you said, we spoke about this yesterday. my view on this is that -- is that the iraqi people really did not come together and ask us to stay in a way that made it possible for us to stay. and it's as simple as that. no major iraqi leaders with the exception of the kurds came forward and invited us to stay. they didn't go on television. we obviously needed a status of forces agreement for the security of our troops and the iraqis didn't meet us halfway on that so this is the result of that negotiation and that's how it ended. >> from your perspective, the fact that we have no presence there and candidly much lesser

influence is a result really of the iraqi people not wanting it to be that way jenchts. >> that's interesting and a very different perspective than i've heard from most, but i appreciate you sharing that. and i would agree with the chairman, we had a pretty terse meeting with malachi here. he's obviously not been a good prime minister. he has not done a good job of reaching out to the sunni population which has caused them to be more receptive to al qaeda efforts. obviously, the syrian conflict, i know there's analysis today saying that's really not having an impact on iraq. i believe it's having a major impact on iraq, but with our diminished status in iraq, and the fact that we used to sort of play shuttle diplomacy if you will between the sunnis and the shiites.

how do you view your role there now under the circumstances that we have and trying to mitigate some of the problems that exist between the -- especially the shiite and the sunni. >> i think i'm blessed to be following in the footsteps of steve beecroft. i think steve has established veked relations with all of the groups in iraq and i think this is a role that we should continue to play. using our good offices to broker solutions to the myriad problems that face iraq. i think we've made great progress in recent months in trying to broker an arrangement by which the hydrocarbon law could be finalized and the relations between the kurdish regional government and baghdad could resolve their problems. i think we can also find ways to support a process of political conciliation between some sun nie groups and the government.

this is the role that the united states has played in iraq for the last ten years and i will certainly hope to continue to play that role. i think we do have significant influence because of our continuing presence in the commercial and petroleum sector as well as continuing presence in the military sector, though obviously not with troops on the ground. >> thank you. ambassador beecroft, we talk a little bit about another topic, and a similar topic, but for different reasons, our influence in egypt itself. i think people have had really strongly held beliefs about what we should and should be doing relative to egypt and aid and i have felt we should continue the relationship, certainly with some contingencies, but -- or conditions, but the fact is we've been sort of on again, off again. people there have perceived us to be in some ways supporting the muslim brotherhood but not the citizens of egypt. you've had some of the gulf

countries step in and fill a vacuum when egypt felt we were stepping away. what's your sense of how the leadership of egypt today views the united states and again similar to ambassador jones, how do you expect to be able to step into that situation and exert appropriate influence and shaping in the country? >> thank you very much, senator. let me first say that we do have a partnership with egypt. the egyptians are continuing to engage with us. we need to take advantage of that to pursue our own interests. our interests and egyptian interests do happen to overlap considerably, i believe. it's not going to always be -- we're not going to always agree on matters, but again, engaging with them, working with them, we can push them in the right direction, what we want to see in egyp we want to see security and stability that's built on

the fundamentals of a sound society and be as inclusive as possible. our assistance, i see it as pursuing our interests in egypt and, again, believe that our interests overlap considerably. if confirmed, i will engage with egyptians, i will push them in the directions that we want them to go, encourage them, work with them and use the assistance to the extent it's approved by congress to further our interests in the country. >> well, thank you, and i appreciate the relationship and conversations that we've had in the past with both the ambassadors and thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity. ms. smith, qatar has played an interesting role in syria because of a lack of policy from our standpoint. i think they became scas er ber rated and went out on their own,

if you will. the reports of that as moving back into a more coordinated effort with us, do you have any existence of their efforts on the ground in syria relative to opposition and are they moving more into the mainstream if you will relative to the type of support they are giving? >> thank very much for that question. yes, we do have the sense that we are making progress in terms of coordination. it's all of our goal to support the moderate opposition in syria, and, of course, to address the humanitarian disaster that is happening there. qatar has been incredibly generous. they have given $1.2 billion toward addressing the humanitarian needs in syria. and so going forward, what our engagement consists of with the qataris is continuing to find ways to coordinate, to work together in support of the moderate opposition. obviously with the ultimate goal being asad not being in charge

anymore. >> in order to give you a chance to say something on the record that i think you authorized to respond to. it's my understanding that the kpee is developing language that allows title x training of the opposition on the dwround in syria. do you know if the administration supports that or does not support it? >> it's my understanding that the administration does support the language in the ndaa to authorize training and equipment of the moderate opposition. again, i'm not in those policy discussions. >> i understand. i understood you were authorized to say they supported it. i wanted it on the record. with that, i'll close and thank you. i want to say to the other committee members that our staff has been able to go down and read the memorandum the understanding we have between the u.s. and cutter. i wish of it available to all

committee members. for some reason, it's not. it's three pages long. my understanding is it's remarkable and our staff had no antenna raised in reading it. i thought i would share it. >> thank you, senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all the witness for your service and willingness to serve. miss smith. let me ask you a question that i was curious about. i forgot to ask you this. in cutter under the leadership of the new have there been any particular changes in direction in the u.s.-cutter partnership or relationship that have seemed notable during the time of transformation. as a kind of steady and continuing to dot relationship in the same place it was or have we seen some changes in direction because of that leadership transition? >> if i'm confirmed i would love to be given more fulsome

response when i'm there and make my own assessment. my understanding is that our relationship continues to bes close cooperative as it was before. the amere has been in power for just about a year, and of course, he's not new to the government. he was working there for over a decade under his father's rule. while i wouldn't say we're seeing a change, what we are seeing is continued progress on the areas where we have good and close coordination. and so i have every expectations if i'm confirmed we'll be able to deepen and expand the positive areas where we're working together. >> one of the areas i know there's been tension that the chairman hosted meetings before with the foreign relations committee members had a chance to dialogue with the amere who had the cuttery. have been supporting in syria that created tensions. is that changing are we more in

accord now and the government about you know what is the right way to have influence to bring this humanitarian issue and ultimately the civil war to an end? >> it's something we're always watching very closely. i haven't heard from anymore that we're ready to ju declare, you know, everything is wonderful and perfect. we feel we are making progress in our shared understanding. which groups institute moderate on sipgs and who is worthy of our support. >> thank you for that. you talked about the economic issues in egypt. you know, it seems like that would be a real test for the new president is how quickly he can try to demonstrate some economic improvement. we had a chance to talk about this the other day could you talk about the role the u.s. can play in helping egypt in economic transformation, and also, the role that other allies, the gulf state allies

should be able to play. >> thank you very much, mr. senator. as i mentioned earlier in the hearing, egypt does have the fundamentals for successful economy, and it need to be encouraged to take the steps necessary to build that economy. we have a team that is akkively engaged with the egyptians and the gulf states to help target assistance to egypt and encourage the necessary reforms. one of the things that the president has called for is investment. and investment is key to developing the economy in order to get an investment. you have to have certain sound u fundamentals in place or the investment won't come. among those, are, of course among the stable society based 0en an inclusive democracy that guarantees human right for all egyptians. and provides the security and stability that encourage people to invest. as i mentioned earlier, egypt

benefits from certain advantages that should help it get through these crucial times, if it chooses to make the right reforms. among those are infrastructure that is relatively well developed. as i mentioned tell comes, roads, ports, access promise similarity to markets in europe and asia. including the suez canal. particularly natural gas. my understanding is egypt has the third largest reserves of natural gas in africa. and a labor market that should be attractive to investors. we need to focus egypt on making the necessary changes so investors see it's a safe and secure environment. again, people enjoy their rights and that they are making the right economic decisions and attract that investment. we can do that by working with the gulf states that are particularly engaged in egypt and stay engaged with egyptians, i hope. >> and one last question human rights front. i know, there's been a question

before i walked into the room. i was most troubled when i was there in february about the situation with journalists and probably because the day i was meeting with the egyptian leaders was the day there was a very prominent set of journalists going on trial. the u.s. embassy in egypt asked if i would come one come all press conference to show an example of an elected official doesn't have to be afraid to answer tough questions from an even hostile press. i got tough questions there. i was used to it. because i've been in politics in the united states. have you seen any signs since the presidential election. any early evidence about the direction of this government will take with respect to press freedoms? or is it too soon to say. >> the president in the inauguration address made mention of the desire to be a president for all egyptians. and to see all egyptians enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms. and i think what we want to do

is extent we can to push and take him up on that. and encourage him to follow through. obviously we believe in the strongest possible freedom of the press. the broad e possible freedom for the press. it's very disturbing and unfortunate that journalists have been detained and charged with crimes in egypt. a society cannot function effectively without -- democratic society without freedom of the press. we need to encage and encourage it. we need to find ways to show that having a free press is in the interest of egypt as a country and the interest of the government, the interest of the people. >> thank you. ambassador jones, thank you for your service. i very much was impressed with your work leading the mission in jordan when i visited last july. i don't have much time left. let me get to it. what do you think about the commitment of the iraqi government the political inclusion of the different factions within iraqi civil

society? that's been troubling me. i would like your current assessment of that. >> thanks. thanks, also, senator for your visit to jordan. it was a positive and helpful experience. i think especially as the government faces this terrorist challenge with isio there's a strong incentive and political will to try to unify the groups. just recently, the prime ministers issued a statement, you know, encouraging national unity and inviting participation in unifying the groups against isio. i think there is political will, and, you know, even before the most recent crisis in mo zul, the prime minister reached out to sunni groups. he brought 6,000 triable members into the iraqi security forces. he's aiming for a number of -- an even larger number. i think there's movement on this. this is obviously something where i think the united states

can continue to play a positive role and we should. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss smith, first of all, congratulations on your appointment. interesting time to be going to -- my first question out of the box. we've been debating for a second. what is the definitive pronunciation? qatar. >> how would i say it? >> qatar. it's probably the best. so let me ask you about qatar. have you been briefed on the memo of understanding? >> yes, i have. >> will that be provided to congress? >> i believe it's been made available to the chair and the ranking member. >> do you know if that will be made to other members as well? >> i don't. i'm sorry i'm not in those conversations. >> what can you tell us about how much of the supervision of these individuals will the united states have the ability to participate in? >> thank you for getting the opportunity to address this.

i know, this is very much on people's minds. not only in this room. if i'm confirmed, this goes to the very top of my list of prioritie prioriti priorities. we will be working closely with them verifying both their -- what they have -- the restrictions they have put on the individuals and the information that they will be collecting on these individuals. also, verifying from our standpoint. we'll be assessing every day every night when i go to sleep just to reassess them whether the people pose any threat to our national security. and so i can guarantee that i will be leading a country team representative of our whole government that will be working on this tirelessly. >> can you share