sectarian governance, rejecting an approach to iraq's security that has sectarian goals in mind. but rather, governing and pursuing security in an inclusive, non-sectarian way. that's the only way the divisions within iraq are managed and healed in a manner that will allow for iraq to prosper in the future. that has always been the case, and we have, as a country, expended a lot of our most precious resources in an effort to give iraq the opportunity

to -- >> you can watch all of this later at our program schedule. we are taking you live now to a hearing getting under way on capitol hill that is ted poe of texas. he chairs one of the subcommittees of house foreign affairs, 1 of the 2 looking into the prisoner exchange for army sergeant bowe bergdahl which occurred on may 31st, a former commander of special forces in afghanistan will testify, as will an army specialist who served with sergeant bergdahl. let's hope that the bergdahl negotiators are not the same ones currently negotiating with iran over nuclear weapons. be that as it may, releasing five senior taliban commanders may put the lives of our senior service members and americans around the world at risk. 1 of the 5 detainees was deputy chief of the taliban's intelligence service. one detainee fought alongside al qaeda, a taliban military general. another was a senior commander wanted by the united nations for

war crimes and worked closely with al qaeda and their affiliates. in fact, he led an attack with al qaeda the day before 9/11. al qaeda called this attack an important part of the 9/11 total strategy. and still another was a close confidant of taliban leader mullah omar. the terms of the release to qatar are quite disturbing. they may help out the taliban while they are in qatar and it is very likely that all of them will end up fighting alongside the taliban in afghanistan later in the year. that will be about the time united states forces will be leaving and the afghans will be on their own. it appears that recent law that was signed by the president was violated in this secret deal. this

darren left behind a pregnant wife and a young son at the time of his death. so today we have witnesses who can tell us what else happened in eastern afghanistan in 2009,

those who have suffered as a result, and what this so-called deal may mean for afghanistan and the united states going forward. i'll yield back my time and i will now recognize the ranking member from california, mr. sherman, for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. andrews, we know that you're the father of garrett andrews, 2nd lieutenant, who gave his life for his country. we cannot thank you enough for your family's sacrifice. we salute darren's courage. i would also like to thank you, specialist full, for your service to our country. mr. walls is a senior national security fellow at the new america foundation who commanded special forces in eastern afghanistan. thank you for your service.

and dr. jacobson, thank you for your 20 years of service in the military, including your deployment to afghanistan. first, as to preliminary issue on iraq, let me point out that we do not have forces in iraq. we do not have a status of forces agreement with iraq. it was president bush that installed al maliki as prime minister of iraq in 2006, and the misgovernance of prime minister maliki is directly responsible for the violence taking place in that country today. it should not be surprising that maliki refused to enter a status of forces agreement with the united states under president obama. he refused to enter a long-term status of forces agreement with president bush, the man who, in effect, allowed him to take power. as to released from guantanamo, while we're focusing today on five guantanamo prisoners being

released, president bush released over 500 prisoners from guantanamo. most of them were dangerous. over 100 of them we know they're fighting us on the battlefield and we know where. most of the others are fighting against us as well, we just can't pinpoint where they are located. what did we get for the 500 that president bush released? absolutely nothing, except thank-you notes from their native countries. as to the national defense authorization act, the president has filed the report. members of this committee can go read it. it is in-depth. it is arguably late, as many reports to congress are. keep

and therefore, it has been and should be sbrepted not to apply in this circumstance, particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. keep in mind that the last republican attorney general of the united states, michael markoski, said this code section is unconstitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a prisoner exchange. i would have preferred if president obama had conferred with members of congress. i'm glad to see he's conferring with congressional leads about what to do in iraq. america is strong whens the president views congress as people to seek counsel from and get information from. members of congresses, leaders of congress can keep a secret. some 16 congressional leaders

knew they had ascertained the hiding place of osama bin laden and that information did not leak. as for negotiating with terrorists, it's a nice phrase. we don't do it. the fact is, we do it all the time. the bush administration negotiated with every single terrorist regime in the world. we identified five state sponsors of terrorism and the bush administration know gauche yated with cuba, iran, sudan and others. they paid a ransom for the rel of two people. colin powell designated the afghan taliban as an organization authorized for legal authorization. now, it is said that because we paid a price for release of bergdahl that this put terrorists around the world on

notice of a fact they somehow didn't know before. that america cares about those who are detained. a walk through the halls of this building shows the p.o.w. flags from the vietnam war. no one in the world doesn't know that we care about our detainees. there are the resolutions. introduced by republican members available to anyone on the internet. that shows that we regard the release of sergeant bergdahl as an important national objective. bringing our prisoners home is important to america. the enemy already knows that. we know it as well. i yield back. >> jim yields back. for the information of the committees, we're if a series of votes. the chair plans to hear the opening statements of all the witnesses and come back for the testimony after the vote. the chair now recognizes the

ranking member of the middle east subdivision -- subdivision, subcommittee. chairman. you're not the ranking member, those mr. sherman thinks you should be. >> thank you. i thank the witnesses for being with us. especially mr. andrews, whose son, darren dean, was killed in afghanistan in 2009. and mr. full and mr. wolts. thank you for your service. mr. andrews, i can't imagine what it would feel like to lose a child in the service of our nation. but as a step mother of a marine aviator who served in iraq and a son-in-law who served as well, i know the worry of a parent. our country owes our brave men and women who have served and earned our gratitude a debt that

can never be repaid. it must start with being completely forthcoming with them. in may 2011, the administration gathered pertinent committee heads to brief us on a potential prisoner swap of taliban terrorists for sergeant bowe bergdahl. news reports from earlier this month indicate that a team of officials from the national security council, state department, cia, director of national intelligence present to us. at the time of the briefing, i was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap. my opinion has not changed. i opposed the swap, not because i did not want to bring bowe home. it's important to have him home and out of the hands of the

taliban. i opposed the swap because it would have resulted in a huge coup for the taliban. would have benefited them, jeopardized the safety and security of the men and women in uniform and compromised security interests. with so many colleagues expressing disapproval of the swap, the administration seemed to drop the exchange plan. or so i thought. we read the news earlier this month that the administration had swapped five taliban commanders for the sergeant. the administration kept the deal secret. the deal is the reason for the legal mandate that congress be given 30 days notice because the administration has a proven track record of overstepping and abusing its authority. as we have seen the taliban use

this to its benefit, using the video tape of the exchange as propaganda. it has only emboldened them further. despite the agreement with the government of qatar, which is only for one year, there are no assurances that they will not be back in the fight in short order and orchestrating an attack from their lavish new head quarters in doha. qatar's support actively works against our interests. it will damage tie with our traditional partners in the gulf. this may have serious implications for national security object ifrs. as it relates to our efforts in iran. this swap is more than just bowe

be bergdahl. it's about u.s. security, the safety of the men and women in uniform, and the administration's dismissal of the law. negotiating and forging a deal with taliban terrorists is -- unnecessarily endangers all of the servicemen and women who are operating in war zones right now. that these five senior taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. it inspires the taliban and other groups to conduct moves on armed force personnel. the taliban is now enkournlgd by the results of the bergdahl trade. the legality of the unilateral decision. the lack of trust that congress has with the administration as a result of this swap. there are many, many unanswered questions, mr. chairman. the administration still needs

to answer. for today, it's important that we have the opportunity to hear from some of the people and how this decision has impacted them personally. those who served in afghanistan, fighting side by side with their fellow soldier. those servicemen and women who may have been placed further in danger because of this exchange. they deserve to be heard and they deserve the truth. thank you for the time. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee, mr. deutsch, for five minutes. >> thank you. to our witnesses, thanks for appearing today. mr. andrews, i join with my colleagues in telling you that words will never be enough for us to express our gratitude for your son making the ultimate sacrifice. i will forever be grateful for

darren's service to the country. we all know that there are substantial questions surrounding the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl and his release. it may take months to find out what happened in the days and weeks leading up to the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl. the army will take what actions appropriate. i'm perplexed that some of the members of congress have decided the facts of this case already. we have a solemn obligation to leave no american soldier behind. when the ability to get the soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we take it. the country has a long history of getting american service

members back through exchanges because we promise the men and women when they sign up that we'll protect them and ensure they return home. some of my colleagues have concluded how sergeant bergdahl's status should be treated. how the facts should be resolved. perhaps one conclude he be left with the taliban. i would ask what kind of military force is it? what kind of military court of justice do we have where members of congress play the judge and jury. find someone guilty. leave it to the taliban to carry out the punishment. we have every right to ask why congress wasn't consulted. but i would caution against prejudging the facts of this case. what message are we sending the troops if we don't do everything

we can to retrieve an american soldier that the army has officially declared missing and captures. whether the price was too high for sergeant bergdahl. we should be reminded of the 532 guantanamo bay detainees that were transferred before this president took office. i would point out that many member of this congress who are now saying they opposed this deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange and were urging the administration to do more to secure the release of sergeant bergdahl. mr. andrews, there is nothing we can say to take away the pain of losing a child. i would like to again express my gratitude for darren's honorable service for the country. i thank you for your service,

too, and i appreciate the opportunities to hear from all of you today. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding back some of his time. >> the chair will recognize individual members for one minute of their opening statements. mr. -- okay. mr. shabot from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> i'm troubled with the administration's insistence that the deal made was the best deal we could get. the washington post reports that among the taliban five, or the fo -- are the former al ban interior member. a former army chief of staff for the taliban army. who was thought to be present when johnny span was killed in 2001. and two who worked closely with al qaeda.

man whose case file says he was one of the most cig tant leaders detained at guantanamo bay. i don't know how many people visited guantanamo bay. looked in the eyes of those who have kill sod many. i have been there three times. i would like to thing they learned the error of their ways and want nothing more than to spend a quiet life with their families in doha. you would have to put me in the skeptical, very skeptical column. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair will hear the opening statement of one more member. then we'll hear the rest of them after the vote. mr. sicillini from rhode island is recognized for one minute. >> i want to thank you and the ranking members for holding today's hearing. i want to thank all the witnesses for their services.

words can dmolt provide comfort adequately to you, mr. andrews, and to your family. and for you to the deep gratitude for the service of your son. it's important we take time to examine the details surrounding the exchange of several high-value terrorists. we should never lose sight of the long-held american tradition that we'll do everything possible to secure the release of an american service member. i'm hopeful that today's hearing will highlight ways to protect the safety of the armed forces and the security of the country. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses assembled. and look for greater clarity. i hope the hearing will serve as a reminder to all of us that we

must stay focused on ensuring the developments of people serving in afghanistan. >> we'll be in recess for 15 minutes. then we'll continue with the opening statements of our witnesses.

the subcommittee taking a break for a vote on the house floor. and when they resume their deliberations, the hearing, we will have live coverage for you here on cspan-3. there's a vote under way on the measure dealing with veterans health care. once that wraps up, this hearing should resume. and the live coverage here.

one of the reasons the schedule accelerating a bit in the house is that the president is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders this afternoon to discuss the u.s. response to the escalating violence in iraq. earlier today, after the gop conference meeting this morning, house speaker john boehner said the u.s. should not work with iran on the increasing violence there. he's joined by other house gop leads. we'll show that to you as we wait for the subcommittees to resume their hearing. >> the american people are paying more for gasoline, more for food, more for their health insurance. and, that's not bad enough, the economists came out late least week and made it clear they expected slower economic growth this year and that last year.

we sent job bill after jobs bill. they continue to lay and gather dust. beyond the focus on the economy, you have the responsibility to provide oversight to the executive branch. the president said there would be full cooperation with the irs scandal. we find out late last week, more troubling news yesterday, that all of these e-mails for several years have been lost. they have known since february that these e-mails were lost. time for the administration to come clean, and to be honest and fruitful to the american people. >> this week is actually the fourth anniversary of the recovery summer. and, as i stand before you today, i can't help but thing of at least one family i know in spokane. the dad, the husband, had been employed for many years and lost

his job. in recent months, having a difficult time finding a new job. he hasn't found one. it's difficult on the entire family. he wants nothing more than a job. and to be able to bring home a paycheck. provide for his family. and yet, because of this economy, the stagnant economy, it is a very difficult task for him. and here in d.c., so often, the reason we're not getting something done is because of the partisan fighting. you know, what we need to do is to come together. we need to come together and work on jobs. the job is the opportunity. get people back to work. help the single mom providing for her children. the recent college grad that needs a job, get a paycheck, but has to help pay off the student loans. we can do this. it takes leadership, coming together, move the solutions forward. there are dozens of jobs bills sitting over the senate. let's act. let's get people back to work.

>> sometimes stuff just happens. is what lois learner said in reference to her lost e-mails. ironically, sometimes, stuff just happens is not a valid excuse for you if you get audited by the irs. in fact, the irs website, under the section how long should i keep records specifies by giving examples. if you don't file a return, you keep records indefinitely. all employment tax records should be kept for at least four years. if you claim a bad department deduction, keep your records for seven years. the list goes on and on. but missing, of course, is if you're sending potentially illegal e-mails based on targeting specific groups, based on their political beliefs. you delete records immediately. this is another example of hypocrisy within a powerful

government agency. that says do as i say, not as i do. whether we're talking about the president's health care law that exempts himself and his cabinet. excessive federal bonuses to folks that bend the rules at the irs and others. this is what government looks like when it gets too big and out of control. it runs amok. big government has proven time and again. it can't be held accountable. it's making life more difficult for folks. the house, this week, will continue our important work. including oversight focusing on creating jobs, growing the economy, and helping put more money in the hard-working americans' pockets. >> you know, for the last year and half, the republican-controlled house of representatives has produced a litany of jobs bills. we have been focused on what the

american people want us to focus on. growing this economy. increasing opportunity for rank and file americans. increasing the rate of personal income growth, which, i ins dents incidentally has been stagnant in recent years. this has been, if not the singular focus of the house, it's been a determine d focus. conventional wisdom is that during an election year, not a whole lot gets done. i think the american people expect more of us in coming months. i came here as part of the class of 2010, along with 70-plus other members of congress. we told our constituents we were going to do everything we could to present concrete solutions to pressing challenges. we fulfilled that mandate.

but the senate, under harry reid's leadership, are stagnant. the raines act is a legislative bill that would reduce penalties on smaller businesses. it passed with bipartisan support last summer out of the house of representative. it hasn't received a hearing in the u.s. senate. the other is the save american workers act. it would redefine full-time back to a standard of 40 hours. currently, under obama care, the 30-hour standard is causing rank and file americans to lose the hours they need during what many consider to be the worst economy since the great depression. it's these bills that the senate must take up. i happen to believe the american people expect the senate to work with the house in a bipartisan

fashion to ensure we pass these bills in the coming months. we must not squander the time between now and the next congress and the house republican conference doesn't intend to do so. thank you. >> chairman roy called for a drone strike against the -- in iraq. do you support that? >> what i think and what i'm hoping to hear from the president today is the broader strategy for how we help keep the freedom that we paid dearly for the people of iraq. there's more than one step. i'm looking for the overall strategy that will help secure the gains we have made. i'm look for an overall strategy from the president. >> do you believe that the president, cow said last week, he had been asleep on this. do you agree this is all

president obama's fault? do you think any responsibility should be held with al maliki? >> the government of iraq is clearly not the most effective government. they've had their challenges in terms of understanding how to run a free society and a government that is open. and so, but, having said that, it's nothing new. the president's been watching what we have been watching. for over a year. as the situation in iraq continued to be undermined. and yet, nothing, nothing has happened to try to reverse it. i'm hopeful i'll hear something today. [ inaudible question ] >> no. absolutely not. i can just imagine what our friends in the region, our allies would be thinking, by reaching out to iran at a time

when they continue to pay for terrorists and foster terrorism. not only in syria and lebanon, but in israel as well. >>. >> -- are there certain parameters of what you think is acceptable for u.s. involvement? whether it's 675 security people or -- >> what i'm looking for is a strategy that will guarantee some success. in keeping iraq free. and, propping up the democracy that we fought so hard to get there. thank you, everybody. [ inaudible question ] >> i just said. i don't need to get into the specifics. the president needs to outline an overall strategy for success. and i'm hopeful that today in our meeting, i'll hear from him. >> thank you. >> by the way, house leadership

elections are set for tomorrow. those comments from earlier today by speaker boehner and others, the speaker will be joined by leader pel loss si and the leaders in the house and senate. in about half hour, they'll meet with the president to discuss the response to the escalating violence. expected at 3:00 p.m. eastern. not sure if we'll see comments from the leaders afterwards. here waiting for the hearing to resume. looking at the exchange of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. once it is under way, we'll have that for you live here on c-span3. in the meantime, we take you live to janet yellen. she's just started her news briefing as the federal open market briefing is happening.

>> however, as i have emphasized before, purchases are not on a preset course. and the committee's decisions about the pace of purchases remain contingent about jobs and inflati inflation. let me turn to the frame work we'll be applying as we consider interest rate policy. in determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 0.25% target range for the federal funds rate, the committee will assess progress, both realized and expected, toward its objectives. this broad assessment will not sing on any one or two indicat r indicators but will take into account a wide range of information. including measures of labor

market conditions. indicators of inflation pressures and expectations. and readings on financial developments. based on it current assessments of these factors, the committee anticipates it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends. especially if projected inflaex continues to run below the committee's 2% longer run goal and longer term up inflation expectations remain well anchored. further, once we begin to remove policy accommodation, it's the committee's current assessment that after employment consideration that they're near the same levels. they were not keeping the target federal funds rate below levels

that are seen as normal in the longer run. this guidance is consistent with the current policy. the federal funds rates for most participants remaining well below longer run normal below values. those participants provide a number of explanations for the federal funds rate target remaining below the longer run normal level, many cite the residual effects of the financial crisis. including restrained house hold spending, reduced credit availability, and diminished expectations for future growth and output and informations consistent with the view that the potential growth rate of the economy may be lower for some time. let me reiterate however that the committee's expectations for

the path of the federal funds rate target is contingent on the economic outlook. if the economy proves to be stronger than anticipated by the committee, results in a more rapid convergence of employment or inflation to the fomc's objective, then increases in the federal funds rate target are likely to happen sooner and be more rapid than currently envisioned. conversely, if economic change disappoints, increases in the federal funds rate target are likely to take place later and to be more gradual. before taking your questions, i would like to provide an update on the committee's ongoing discussions on the mechanics of normalizing the stance and the conduct of monetary policy. to be clear, these discussions

are in no way intended to signal any imminent change in the stance of monetary policy. rather they represent prudent planning on the part of the committee and reflect the committee's intention to communicate plans to the public well before the steps become appropriate. the committee is confident that it has the tools it needs to raise short-term interest rates when it is appropriate to do so. and to control the level of short-term interest rates thereafter. even though the federal reserve will continue to have a very large balance sheet for some time. the committee's recent discussions have centered on the appropriate mix of tools to employ during the normalization process. and the associated implications for the degree of control over short-term interest rates. the functioning of the federal funds market.

and the extoent which the federal reserve transacts with financial institutions outside the banging sector. the committee is constructively work through the many issues related to normalization and will continue its discussions in upcoming meetings with the expectation of providing additional details later this year. thank you. i'll be happy to take your questions. [ inaudible question ] >> steve leaseman, cnbc, there is every reason to expect, madame chair, that the up inflation rate looks likely to exceed your 20 -- >> the gentleman from illinois for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's fun to listen to the strategy session across the aisle.

it was hey, what are we going to do. let's blame bush. it worked for the last six years. it will be an interesting hearing. i want to say thank you to the witnesses for being here. when i went through survival training, i was told your country will never leave grow behind. there was a mutual understanding that your country will never leave you behind if you never leave your country behind. and there was secondly a mutual understanding that there can be a cost that is too great to pay. they promise to search for you. move heaven and earth. i was never promm epromised tha my country would release five of the biggest enemies in exchange for my freedom. i'm interesting to hear about this. i want to thank the chairman and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gent l

lady from florida for one minute. i know row ryou ran back. >> thank you, gentlemen. for all of you, my heart breaks for you, mr. andrews. and for the gentlemen, i thank you for your service. i want to give you a different perspective. my own son served in both iraq and afghanistan as a united states marine. i'm very proutd of that. he's home. but i will tell you this. when he wept off to war, i, of course, like probably most parents, i not only feared he would not come home alive or that he would come home very maimed. but for me, my biggest worry was that he would be taken as a prisoner of war. tortured, put in a cage. it was just unimaginable. um, that's why i believe so strongly in the u.s. military principle that we should leave no man or woman behind.

it maintains confidence. order. when we send our young men and women off to war, they should know we have their backs. we will do everything possible to bring them home. thank you, again, for your service. and sir, for your loss. >> chair thanks the gentlemenwoman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, for one minute. >> five years ago today i was a captain in the united states army in logman province. i'll take the prerogative to speak for some of the soldiers there in afghanistan. i find it insulting that the president would use the principle of no man left behind as a reason to do this. you know who didn't leave a fallen comrade? cody full, darren andrews.

all the people that went after him in the weeks and months after his disappearance knowing he deserted. we didn't agree to an exchange of prisoners. would we exchange khalid sheikh muhammad. show yourself speak in your own name. have the courage of your convictions. if you don't, shut up, stand back, and thank these men for their service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm hearing my colleagues on the other side, don't politicize this but blame bush or whatever.

seems to me the president politicized this when he had a white house, rose garden ceremony for mr. bergdahl's parents. i'm going to ask and i would like to know where any of the people who served honorably and were killed in action were given the courtesy of a rose garden ceremony. i think the answer is probably no. what the president did either benefitted the security of the united states or it did not. i believe it did not. and i think that this was something that the american people disagree with. and i see that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to run interference for the administration by blaming previous presidents. it doesn't cut it. let's deal with this issue as its own. and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. mr. andrews, my deep et sympathy

to you and your family, maybe your wife behind you? there are not words to express the terrible sense of loss you must experience. i have had friends and similar losses. thank you for being here today. we're here today to examine the decision to exchange sergeant bowe bergdahl, a soldier held in captivity for five years for five detainees in guantanamo. it's easy to yield to the temptation to decide that mr. bergdahl did not serve his country. i would caution my colleagues this is not a partisan affair. this is about somebody's s service. and we should withhold judgment on the quality and nature of the service until it is known.

the benefit of the doubt belongs to mr. bergdahl. it is not up to congress in advance to decide somebody's status before we justify leverilever i -- leaving no one behind. this one time, let us resist the temptation of partisanship. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. meadows. >> i recently returned from guantanamo. got look in the eyes of many of the detaine res that are there. make no mistake, the ones we release in no comparison to the 400 or 500 that have been released prior. these men were a danger to the once that guarded them. so dangerous we cannot identify those who do guard them for their own protection. they are not choir boys.

i will assure you they're singing a song. it's a death march for the men and women who come in their way in the future. the cost was way too high to release the taliban five in exchange for this. with this. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague is correct. this is not a partisan affair. this is a committee of foreign affairs and that it is. it is a foreign affair. and the president is charged with negotiating on our behalf. unfortunately, i hope that we come to conclusion to implore this president, mr. president, stop negotiating on our behalf, please. some would say that in conventional military terms, what the president did, we got one conventional weapon, some would say a dud, they got five nuclear weapons. maybe we need to come to the conclusion to send a letter to

the president please, mr. president, stop negotiating for us. as to the andrews, as abraham lincoln said in the letter to mrs. bixby, there's no words that we can express to you but to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your sacrifice. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for one minute. >> thank you very much. president obama has put american military personnel, u.s. diplomatic personnel, and yes, even american businessmen and tourists at risk by releasing five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured american. we have given terrorists the incentive to capture and hold hostages more and more. i would say that what we have to realize is that our president has just made a decision that

will result in our country and our people being less safe than had he not made that decision, and yes, president bush released 500 taliban that had been held in gitmo but he did not make a deal for them. he did a survey to find out if they were the least threatening of those people who were being held. had he done a deal for them, we would be condemning him as well. the fact is, this was an exchange, a specific exchange, a quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists around the world to seek other hostages to make similar deals. he has done -- our president has done a great disservice to those who defend us as well as to the people of the united states. he has put us at risk. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. and mrs. andrews, thank you so much for your family's

service. it's very personal to me. my two oldest sons served in iraq. my third son served in egypt. my fourth son just returned from his service in afghanistan. so i truly have a great appreciation of the commitment of military families, service members, of veterans. and the president has disrespected all of them by releasing five taliban. the response was mass murder in pakistan. there were two attacks on the airport there in karachi. dozens of people were murdered. also, shiite pilgrims were murdered just last week. the response is very very clear. in fact, we found out that one of the taliban leaders said how much he appreciated the release, the pardon of one of the particular taliban five who was the equivalent of 10,000 taliban fighters. this is serious. the president has put the american people at risk. thank you for being here. >> does any other member wish to be recognized for an opening

statement? seeing none, the chair will go into the statements of the witnesses. without objection, all the witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record. i ask that each witness please keep your presentation to no more than five minutes. when you see the red light come on, that means stop. you are welcome to summarize your prepared statements if you need to. the witnesses are also advised that as usual, testimony provided to the subcommittee is subject to the false statements act under 18 usc section 1001 and thus, any deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of material information is punishable by law. i will introduce each of the witnesses and then we will allow them to testify in the order that they are seated. mr. andy andrews is the father of the fallen second lieutenant darren andrews, who was reportedly killed while on mission to look for sergeant bergdahl. he is joined by his wife, sandra

andrews, who is seated directly behind him, and she is wearing the dog tags of her son. mr. andrews, i know your time is limited because you have to catch a plane to go back to houston for chemo therapy. we appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to washington and wish you both a quick recovery. specialist cody full is a specialist in sergeant bergdahl's squad at the time he disappeared, and they were previously roommates together. mr. mike waltz is the senior national security fellow at the new america foundation. mr. waltz commanded a special forces company in eastern afghanistan at the time sergeant bergdahl was captured. he was previously a senior defense department coordinator for afghanistan and vice president cheney's counterterrorism advisor. and then dr. mark davidson is the senior advisor at the truman national security project adjunct professor at george

washington university. he previously advised both general stanley mcchrystal and general david petraeus and served on the staff of the senate armed services committee. we will start with mr. andrews. you have five minutes, sir. you will need to turn on the microphone, that little button in front of you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee. >> if you would, mr. andrews, sorry to interrupt, but get the microphone right in front of you. >> i'm andy andrews, father of second lieutenant darren andrews who was killed in afghanistan while in the process of searching for bowe bergdahl. darren's first tour in afghanistan was in 2004 as an enlisted soldier. he developed a medical condition that required surgery so he was sent to germany and then back to the states. he applied to the program, he was accepted into it and enrolled in 2006 at texas state university to complete his master's degree. while enrolled in rotc. he was commissioned as second

lieutenant in the u.s. army, stationed at fort benning, georgia, then briefly at fort richardson, alaska before being sent to afghanistan in april of 2009. we were able to talk to him by telephone whenever he got the chance to call. we conversed with him around july 1st or 3rd, his birthday is on the 3rd. he told us he had been out looking for the last 24 hours for this soldier who had walked away. i asked if the soldier had been captured while on guard duty. darryn said he didn't think so because all of his gear was found neatly stacked, so he thought the soldier had just left. the soldier's name was not mentioned so all we knew was that a soldier had left. darryn could not tell us where he was or what they were doing. when we would talk to him in the next few months, we would occasionally ask if they had found this soldier and he would say no, they were still looking. no name or specifics were ever mentioned. darryn was killed september 4th,

2009 which was our wedding anniversary. he distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in combat as a platoon leader of the third platoon blackfoot company first battalion, 501st infantry airborne in support of operation enduring freedom. his wife and son, his twin brother and his family were in cameron, texas to celebrate darryn's son's second birthday on september 7th. my wife and i had been on the coast to celebrate our anniversary. we had just pulled into our driveway and started to unload the truck. jarrett came over and told us that darryn's wife's neighbor had called to tell her that the army was looking for her. this was approximately 1530 hours. he told them that we would call her and tell her to be back at the house at 1830 hours. i unhooked the boat and we all went to new bronfuls.

the army arrived at approximately 1900 hours. the soldier told us darryn had been killed september 4th and would probably still be alive if he had remained in the truck like most officers would have instead of getting out of the truck to help get it out of the hole the ied had made. we were told he had saved soldiers' lives when he spotted an enemy combatant fire. an rpg, he shoved others out of

the way and alerted other soldiers. he took a direct hit from the rpg. we attended a memorial service for darryn and other soldiers killed in afghanistan. lieutenant colonel bricker's wife hosted a luncheon for us. at that luncheon, we were told how he was killed. the vehicle hit an ied and was disabled. they got out to assess the damage. darryn had the staff sergeant and pfc with him. he saw the enemy combatants from behind a wall fire an rpg. he yelled rpg and pushed them to

the ground, then darryn took a direct hit from the rpg. the sergeant received some damage to his ears and private martinek survived but died a few days later. on february 12th, 2010, second lieutenant darryn andrews was posthumously awarded the silver star. at no time was it mentioned that he was searching for bergdahl, only searching for a high interest taliban. when bergdahl was portrayed on television as serving with honor and distinction by secretary of state susan rice, the soldiers who were there contacted my wife to make sure they knew they understood what a hero was and was not, and bergdahl's walking away was a contributing factor in darryn's death. i saw lieutenant colonel on television state if you want to know what happened, ask the enlisted people, don't ask the officers, because enlisted people can tell you exactly what

happened. we received testimony from six different soldiers, the same testimony that bergdahl walked away and was not captured and that darryn was killed while searching for him. thank you. >> thank you, mr. andrews. the committee now will hear from specialist full. >> mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my firsthand account of my experiences serving in afghanistan. one of the first things i noticed about bergdahl when he arrived to our unit, he was always asking questions, he seemed focused, he was well-read, intelligent, blended in as he needed to be, always at the right place, right time, right uniform.

in november, our unit deployed the national training center to train for upcoming deployment to afghanistan. during this time, myself, nor anybody i have spoken with, can remember bergdahl walking off the base and abandoning his team. this story seems to be repeated over and over again. i have no idea why. i would have at least heard about that or known it was happening. it did not happen. in march of 2009, our brigade deployed to afghanistan but bergdahl did not make the deployment with us. he had gotten staph infection and would not make it until may 2009. soon after arriving in afghanistan, we were tasked with

building an o.p. observation post. while there, we were on the front lines digging holes for bunkers, filling sandbags, driving tee posts, hanging wire, all grueling tasks in themselves in 100 degree weather. go ahead and add your equipment, it's very tough. we were told we could take some items of clothing off to keep us from having a heat stroke. security was always set in place. nobody was ever in jeopardy. this has been used against us, saying that we were a band of outlaws or misfits. not the case. leaders were reprimanded for were our orders and we will follow them. before we went out to o.p. mess the day of june 30, 2009, about a week before we were told this is the last time we would ever go out to this observation post, during this time bergdahl mailed his items home or to a family friend. he mailed them back to the states. we didn't know this until after been sleeping in we found his gun, ammo and plate carrier.

patrols were kicked out to surrounding areas to look for bergdahl. according to some small children we spoke to, they had seen a single american matching bergdahl's description crawling low on the ground through the reeds earlier that day on their way to school. this story was prerepeated by others who saw the same thing. a few days later we heard from our interpreter that the american that was walking around in the afghan village looking for somebody that spoke english and water also wanted to seek out the taliban. that was from the interpreter speaking directly to us. after bergdahl was found that he walked off, dusk one was called up, duty status and whereabouts unknown. every asset in afghanistan was pushed to his effort. after bergdahl shipping his items home, local accounts of seeing him crawling and asking for the taliban, the false stories he's e-mailed his father and odd questions all helped us connect the dots later but at the time of the unfolding events, it seemed like normal off the wall jargon common when the infantry is deployed. the facts tell me that bergdahl desertion was premeditated. he had a plan and was trying to justify it in his head. how long he had planned this, i do not know. but it is clear to me that he

had a plan and executed it. countless people looked for him when he went missing, putting their own lives on the line for his. combat is difficult. the only thing you can count on in combat is commitment of your fellow american. knowing that someone you needed to trust deserted you in war and did so on his own free will is the ultimate betrayal. now that bergdahl is back in the united states, an investigation needs to take place as to why he left us. all the documents including the intelligence known on bergdahl now need to come to the public view. americans need to also see the original investigation on bergdahl's desertion. you should not be able to desert your fellow americans without consequences. bowe bergdahl should not be characterized as serving with honor and distinction. if bergdahl hadn't deserted us, he would never have been held in captivity. in my opinion, bowe bergdahl needs to be charged with desertion, missing movement, disrespect towards superior

commissioned officer, insubject ordinary eight conduct, miss behavior before the enemy and misconduct as prisoner. thank you. >> thank you, specialist full. mr. waltz, your testimony for five minutes, please. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, ranking members, thank you for holding this hearing today on the subject of vital national importance. i too want to take just a moment to pay tribute to the family members of the thousands who have served their country in this conflict, particularly the andrews family that are here with us today. at the end of the day, we volunteered. we volunteered to go, but the families have to deal with the consequences of our service. on june 30th, 2009, i commanded a u.s. army special forces company with responsibility for operations in eastern afghanistan, particularly paktika province, where then private bergdahl went missing. that evening, two of my special forces teams boarded helicopters in an effort to search an afghan

compound where we had indication that bergdahl may be held. this marked the beginning of several weeks worth of missions into some of the most hostile areas of afghanistan, the pakistan border, to find him. within days, we received orders to halt all other ongoing missions and initiatives, notably including preparations for the 2009 afghan national elections. we were ordered to devote all resources and energy to the search for bergdahl. it soon became apparent, however, that the taliban knew we were conducting an all-out search for him and they began feeding false information into our informant network in order to lure our forces into a trap. on several occasions, my men were lured into ambushes, including an afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb that was primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps. fortunately, the bombs failed to explode in those situations but they were too close for comfort. other soldiers as we know were

not so fortunate. all of us commonly understood at the time that bergdahl had walked off his post after a guard shift into a local afghan village. we knew, though, that we had to do whatever it took to find him and that was fine. but i have to tell you, all of my men, me included, were absolutely furious and resentful, frankly, that a fellow american soldier had put us into this position. it violated the most fundamental and basic ethos of being a soldier and a soldier's creed. i will leave further speculation regarding his state of mind or his motives to my fellow witnesses who knew him personally. but i am confident in saying sergeant bergdahl endangered the lives of thousands of men and women sent to search for him. he diverted scarce and valuable resources such as predator drones, helicopters, ied clearing teams, from other units that desperately needed those assets. wittingly or not, he handed our enemies a significant propaganda

tool they repeatedly used in videos to denounce the united states and recruit for their cause. finally, we all know that he handed the taliban's leadership a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively used to free five of their most senior leaders, what i call the taliban war cabinet. i just want to take a moment, i think it's important to put the release of these men in the broader context of our policy towards afghanistan. as i'm sure you are aware, millions of afghans voted in the runoff election this past saturday. there in the midst of one of the most sensitive and unprecedented political transitions in their history, in my view, there are still significant questions whether they will succeed. every afghan that i have spoken to from civilian society to government officials are stunned that we would release these individuals back into their society. we have to keep in mind, these men were household names, particularly -- household names of the worst kind, particularly to women and minorities that were slaughtered at their hands. it's the timing, though, of this

release that has some of these groups so particularly perplexed. we have spent the last year dueling and cajoling president karzai to sign a long-time security agreement with us, the bilateral security agreement. both of the final candidates replaced karzai indicated they would sign it yet weeks before the presidential election the administration announces a full withdrawal of all u.s. forces by the end of '16, essentially a zero option, and then we restocked the taliban war cabinet. so even if the government of keesh qatar is able to prevent these men from returning to their old ways, what will happen a year from now? a year in that part of the world is a long time for people who have long memories and a long view toward their objectives. one can understand the confusion and trepidation of even the most ardent supporters of a strong afghan/u.s. relationship. so where does that leave our policy going forward? in my view, it's one of hope and assumption, we're assuming an

afghan army can hold its ground. we're assuming there will be no ethnic violence as a part of the transition. we're assuming reconciliation talks will resume in our favor. and most importantly, we are assuming that al qaeda can't reconstitute like it has in iraq and in syria. i would just leave you with a word of caution. if that scares us and what's going on right now with isis in iraq and syria should, what's going to happen when we're dealing with a nuclear arsenal in pakistan? i have other views that i'm happy to answer in questions on aumf and on future gitmo releases but i am out of time. with that, i will stop, sir. >> thank you, mr. walsh. dr. jacobson for five minutes, please, sir. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, ranking members and distinguished members of the joint subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before dau. you today. i should first note that i too extend my gratitude to the andrews family for the sacrifice they have made. i would like to have known their

son. from what i have read and from what i have heard, he's a true hero. i'm also honored to be sitting beside my friend, mike waltz, who is also a true patriot and hero and has served his nation bravely in afghanistan. thank you specialist full for your service as well. as someone who served in the pentagon on september 11th, 2001, the threat posed by terrorism is not lost on me. while i had made the decision years before to devote myself to my nation, that day changed all of our lives forever. as a result, i spent several years in afghanistan as a naval intelligence officer and later, as a civilian advisor. i am acutely aware of the danger that remains today in afghanistan. for the four of us at the table, this conflict is personal and we all feel the impact of this war in a way most americans do not. one of the greatest commitments an american can make to their nation is put on a uniform and take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

by taking this oath, these men and women make the selfless decision to put their country first. they do so knowing that they may be one day called to give that last full measure of devotion, to give their lives for their comrades, their families, and their nation. in exchange for that, the military makes its own promise, a promise to keep faith with those who have been captured. the commitment is simple. leave no man or woman behind, no exceptions. this commitment is unequivocal regardless of the circumstances of capture. this is something we owe to all those who have served, do serve and will serve. in short, this is why i believe that securing sergeant bergdahl's release was absolutely the right thing to do and was worth the potential risks. indeed, if bergdahl did act improperly, then it is even more important that he be brought home and held accountable in the military system for his actions. while there is always risk when

releasing detainees, those risks must be seen within a broader context. indeed, the potential risks for the administration are no greater today than they were during the previous administration when 532 detainees were released from guantanamo bay. but there are reasons why given the situation today, we should temper our concerns. first, as outlined by secretary of defense hagel, the qatari government has committed to significant mitigation risk measur measures. there is not a consensus these five individuals will inevitably return to the battlefield and if they do, the afghanistan of 2014 is simply not the afghanistan of 2001. as mike waltz mentioned, the afghan people have just gone through elections. 14 million ballots cast in two separate elections in open defiance of the taliban. the strength of the insurgency will not regenerate because of the presence of five more individuals on the battlefield,

especially since they have been off the battlefield for over a decade. some have questioned whether the recent prisoner exchange created new precedents that will endanger the lives of u.s. personnel. while the exchange of sergeant bergdahl took place before the end of the war in afghanistan, in the past we have conducted prisoner exchanges before the end of hostilities. world war ii and the korean war, for example. likewise, the threat of kidnapping to u.s. members of the armed forces by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in afghanistan. it was my own number one threat while i served in uniform. there is no reason to think that this calculus will be changed by the recent exchange. finally, the united states has been negotiating with the taliban for some time now. a recognition that the war in afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. i understand the disappointment we feel in the stories coming out about sergeant bowe bergdahl and i understand the anger felt by some of his comrades who feel that he deliberately left his post. if i were them, i might feel the same way.

but the truth is, we do not yet know the whole truth. in our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is sack row sankt. people are innocent until proven guilty. thus, before passing judgment, there must be a thorough investigation. it must be allowed to take place without politics or partisanship. without that, we are unlikely to ever have accountability. we may not like it but in the end, foreign affairs and national security policy are often about juggling bad options and finding a least worst approach. there are rarely simple solutions. the decision to exchange sergeant bergdahl may be imperfect but it was the right decision. we never leave our soldiers behind. thank you again, mr. chairman, madam chairwoman, for inviting me to testify. i am pleased to stand ready for your questions. >> i thank you all of you all for your testimony. we will now go to questions by the individual members. i recognize myself for five minutes. there are several issues that have come to light during this hearing. the first one is sergeant

bergdahl, who is he, why did he leave his post, and what's going to happen to him in the future. the second would be those that looked for him, what happened to some of them and what did the government, the u.s. army, tell those who lost sons looking for him. there is the issue of do we negotiate with terrorists or do we not negotiate with terrorists, what is the foreign policy of the united states. maybe one of you could come up with that answer to that question. and then there's the taliban five or as mr. waltz has called them, the taliban war cabinet, i believe was what the term was. who are these folks and why were they at gitmo in the first place and what are they going to do in the future. so those are the four issues that i want to address. start with you, mr. andrews. what did the army tell you about the way your son was killed? turn on the mic, please, sir. >> way too technical.

they said that they were searching for high ranking taliban and they had gone to this bazaar to search for him and because this was actually in the silver star commendation, because they had so many problems with ieds on the roads, that instead of coming in from the south, they sent them around to come in from the north -- >> excuse me for interrupting. they told you your son was looking for a taliban commander of some type? >> bergdahl was never mentioned. >> all right. when did you learn that that was not true? >> last saturday. >> were you ever instructed or asked or told by the u.s. army to sign a confidentiality agreement, not to tell anybody about what you were told by the army? >> i was not. but the soldiers who have contacted my wife were asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement, they said. >> all right.

sergeant full, you obviously are very passionate about your testimony. were members of the united states military killed looking for bergdahl? >> i don't know. what i do know is we awere told we wouldn't be in certain areas before he went and deserted us. so if he wouldn't have deserted us, those people wouldn't have been in those places where they were killed on that date. they would have been somewhere else. they would have been in a different section of afghanistan. >> mr. waltz, do you want to weigh in on that specific question? >> mr. chairman, i can't draw and i don't know of anyone that can draw a direct line but i can tell you to the best of my knowledge, every unit, particularly in paktika province where specialist full was located but also mine and the

surrounding provinces were dedicated to that search. someone was killed during that specific amount of time, unless they tripped and hit their head on the way to the mess hall, they were out looking for sergeant bergdahl. >> the taliban war cabinet, mr. waltz, you indicated a lot of concern about who these guys are. one of them, even the united nations has indicted one of them for war crimes. who are these people? americans really aren't sure -- don't know who these five folks are. >> mr. chairman, we have released now the taliban's deputy minister of defense, a senior operative in their intelligence service, that was responsible for migrating al qaeda intelligence tactics over to the taliban, we have released the former taliban governor of harat, their westernmost province on the border with iran

and was responsible for liaising with the government on behalf of the taliban and we released gentlemen that were wanted for war crimes for literally massacring thousands of the ethnic minority that are shia. if we look at the sectarian violence going on across the middle east, i wouldn't call that necessarily a wise move. these gentlemen, the question i can't get anyone to ask that was involved with this, and i have talked to a number, is why did the taliban pick those five, out of all of the spectrum of folks they could have chosen out of guantanamo, why did we give them essentially their top five draft picks. >> one follow-up question on that. understanding the agreement, qatar is supposed to supervise them but the supervision of house arrest, if you will, is for one year. is this your understanding of the deal that was made? >> that's my understanding, mr. chairman. frankly, i think some of the details of what they can or can't do in the next year are

almost moot. the fact is it's only for a year. >> last question, dr. jacobson. we have heard this through the media, lovelady family in texas was told that the united states doesn't negotiate with terrorists. their son was later killed in the algerian attack. does the united states have a policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists or we don't have a policy? >> what i can tell you is that i don't believe that the bergdahl exchange is an example of negotiating with terrorists. i believe it is an exchange of prisoners, something that we have seen historically towards the end of war. >> thank you very much. the chair will recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. five minutes. >> let me first put to rest this absurd argument that these five taliban prisoners would have had to have been released under the laws of war when we concluded combat operations in 2014 or when we were down to a couple hundred trainers in 2016.

i'm pleased to note for our record that just last week, the general counsel of the department of defense, steve preston, testified there that we would continue to have legal right to hold taliban prisoners, not just with the conclusion of war in afghanistan but until the broader battle defined under the aumf was concluded. we are going to continue to have american trainers in afghanistan for many many years. the taliban soldiers will try to kill those trainers. the laws of war do not require us to augment the forces trying to wage war against our trainers or against the afghan government. we are at war with the taliban for as long as they and their -- are allied with terrorist organizations waging war against the united states, or as long as the taliban is waging war against the government in

afghanistan. dr. jacobson, i've got a number of questions i'm hoping you will be able to answer very succinctly in some cases with a yes or no answer. we are told that some of these five released are quote, wanted by the u.n. for war crimes. does the u.n. have a process by which anyone can be wanted by the u.n. for war crimes? have they ever indicted anybody? do they have a process to indict anybody? >> i'm unaware of that. i understand that there is some debate over how that came in some of the d.o.d. documents, where that came from. >> there are many urban legends in foreign policy. are any of these five under indictment from the international criminal court or any other recognized body that focuses on war crimes? >> you would have to ask the department of state or you would have to ask -- >> are you aware -- >> i'm not aware. no. >> i did ask you to research

this, didn't i? >> what i think is important, congressman, is understanding again this context. these individuals are dangerous but they are simply not going back to that same battlefield from which they were captured. >> dr. jacobson, i have very limited time. i want to go on to something else. the question arises whether continued patrols should have been made to try to retrieve sergeant bergdahl and i should note for the record here that senators burr and toobey and senate republican leader mitch mcconnell along with eight republican leaders of the house, at a time when we already knew the mysterious circumstances of bergdahl's departure and that that was widely published, put forward a resolution stating that abandoning the search efforts for members of the armed forces who are missing or captured is unacceptable. at the time, there was only one member of our armed services missing or captured and these

fine members of congress, house and senate, knew full well that those additional patrols that they were demanding would be dangerous for our armed forces. i should also point out that as to whether this deal is a good deal, it was senator mccain who knew exactly the parameters of this deal except for the details. because these five for one named bergdahl because the possible outlines of this deal were published on the front page of "the washington post" on february 17th and the context on february 18th. senator mccain said he was for the deal if the details were correct. now, maybe the details don't meet his specifications but it is indeed a close call whether this five for one deal was or was not in the national security interests of the united states. we are told that it's somehow news that we have revealed to the taliban that we care about

our prisoners. the only other democracy to have soldiers captured in the middle east to my knowledge, dr. jacobson, what were they willing to do to get back their sergeant major? >> i don't want to mistake the details of that particular case. what i am aware of is at times the israelis have exchanged over 1,000 prisoners for one individual and also, they have exchanged prisoners for the remains of their fallen. >> so anyone observing the practices of democracies doing battle in the middle east would reach the conclusion that if you can capture somebody, democracies have a particular need to try to get that person back and are willing to make extraordinary concessions, as you point out, sometimes 1,000 to one? >> i don't think anyone would disagree with the point that our democracy has shown that it cares a great deal about our men and women who have been left behind. >> finally, as to these five

released taliban, their battlefield experience is from 2001. would they be familiar -- were the tactics that they are familiar with near as good as the tactics used by the taliban today? >> unfortunately, in my opinion, the insurgents in afghanistan have evolved tremendously since that period in 2001. in terms of their tactics. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you all for being here. i just, again, we are going to the idea of let's point out anybody that ever said anything about releasing this one person and therefore, the administration made the right decision because others said it. i would be remiss if i didn't make a bigger point here on the afghanistan issue which is the president has announced that in january of 2017, all american troops will be out of afghanistan. and you know, that's fine for him to make that decision, but i would just point people to what's happening in iraq today as a precursor of what's going

to happen in afghanistan if that occurs. but again, we are here for this specific issue. again, i want to thank all of you for being here. let me ask a question to the specialist. what do you think, when you were in training and you heard this idea of your country will never leave you behind and it's something that as members of the armed forces, we take very seriously, and something that we take a great deal of comfort in. when you heard that, what is your understanding of your country will never leave you behind mean? what does that guarantee in your mind and is that an idea that they will release five or 1,000 terrorists to get you back? what is it that meant to you, specialist? >> well, what it meant to me is, you know, i put my nation first when i volunteered to serve the united states army in time of war. so by putting them first, they would put me first to a certain extent. but you keep hearing we shouldn't leave no man behind because we can trade with

another nation and it's done in all these previous wars. taliban is not a nation. they are a terrorist organization. so is the haqqani network that held bowe bergdahl. i got from it leave no honorable man behind, not leave no man behind. >> do you believe so you may be in touch with folks that are still in afghanistan or obviously people you served with. i will ask the four of you. you can expand on this, specialist, if you want. the other three, i will ask to keep fairly short. do you believe that the release of bergdahl for the taliban and the subsequent video they put out, obviously has to have some meaning, showing i.e. the american helicopter leaving in an essence withdrawing from the area, do you believe that was a propaganda victory or propaganda defeat for the taliban, this exchange, and what do you think that does to the heart of a soldier that saw this happen, specialist? >> i think it's a propaganda victory for the taliban and

haqqani network. it's kind of a direct, they traded one for five. it's simple math. >> do you sense that this will help or hurt the taliban's recruiting effort to recruit people to kill americans and to kill afghans who have put their lives on the line to build a strong and stable country? >> i would assume it would help them, not hurt them. >> mr. andrews, what's your thought on that question? >> from what i can see, it was a victory, propaganda wise, for the taliban. they won is the way it looks like when you see the footage. so i think it would benefit the taliban greatly. i think it also puts soldiers more in danger of being captured because the rewards are more for getting one and trading him. >> thank you. mr. waltz and mr. jacobson, very quickly, if you guys could just respond with yes or no,

basically. >> very quickly, mullah omar, the leader of the taliban, considered it a victory and stated so as soon as he received his five top commanders back. >> i don't trust mullah omar so i would say it pales by comparison to the video that could have taken place with one of our soldiers being beheaded like we saw with nick berg or daniel pearl. >> that's an interesting twist. your twist is, you don't trust this guy, therefore, him saying that it was a victory for his organization is probably a lie. i mean, that's kind of surprising to me, because i think if it was not a victory for them, they probably wouldn't have said anything or released a video and they probably would have sat back and been very quiet about it. that's an interesting spin. you have a right to your opinion but i think that was an interesting take that the other three do not share. do you believe, specialist, do you believe he intentionally left his post and do you have a sense as to why he might have intentionally left? >> yes.

i do believe he left without a doubt. we knew within an hour, two hours, that he had deserted. i don't know why he did it. he obviously had a plan. it was premeditated. why would you ship all your items home and then, you know, in the middle of a deployment. so with the e-mails and other questions he asked us connecting the dots later, yeah, he deserted without a doubt. >> i get -- thank you. while i get some folks saying we necessitat need to wait to have this adjudicated in court, the reality is we know sergeant bergdahl left his post. we know it. now, was he a full mental state, i guess that can be determined. but there are a lot of people that have had mental challenges with dealing with what happened in afghanistan and iraq that still do not leave their brothers and sisters behind in combat. so with that, mr. chairman, i thank the witnesses and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr.

deutsche, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. waltz, sergeant bergdahl was designated missing and captured, right? at the time? >> my understanding, sir, is he was designated missing and prisoner of war and that's why he was since promoted in absentia. that confers a number of benefits. >> dr. jacobson, how is that determination made? >> well, that determination is made by the department of defense. i don't know the specific details what they would have to go through. but i would agree with my understanding is the same as mike's. >> for both of you, i understand as i said in my opening comments and as has now been confirmed by some of the comments of my colleagues, some of them know what happened. they have reached a conclusion. it was obvious, we are told. but what does the military do to

actually reach the same conclusion? what steps does the military take in determining whether someone who is determined to be missing is actually -- has actually deserted? mr. waltz? >> i think the key point here is that what the military has done to date has been initial and therefore, incomplete. they have not done a full investigation and therefore, i'm not sure how one could draw a full conclusion as to what they think -- what we think happened. >> well, but how do they -- do you have any further insight? it seems very easy from what a lot of elected officials say. it's not that hard to figure out. he's a deserter and apparently we shouldn't have made this deal. but what has -- what's the military done to reach that same conclusion? >> sir, my understanding out in the field at the time was that a 15-6 which is a type of investigation under ucmj was

conducted. a number of the folks that were there on site were interviewed and that the reason that investigation was not closed was they needed to interview the subject at hand who was obviously missing. >> and if that investigation continues, what might they learn? what could they learn during that investigation? >> from what i have seen in the press so far, a great deal has come out. for example, we have seen information come out that perhaps sergeant bergdahl tried to escape several times, which forced his captors to put him into isolation. we have now seen reports about sergeant bergdahl's prior enlistment in the coast guard. i walk away with more questions from what i've seen come out so far. we have even seen today in testimony, what type of person is or was sergeant bergdahl. so again, more questions which is exactly why there needs to be a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his capture. >> dr. jacobson, mr. waltz, what

happens if my colleagues are wrong? what happens if the military completes its investigation and determines any one of a thousand different things happened and that sergeant bergdahl was in fact missing and a prisoner of war, not a deserter? can you speak to that? >> let me speak to it, mike may have some other comments, but my concern is if we look back at what happened to many of our prisoners of war during the korean war and during the vietnam war, many were accused of collaboration and not acting properly. in fact, senator mccain was at the forefront of ensuring that many of those records were sealed until proper investigations could be done, because our enemies want us to think that certain things happened. and i'm not suggesting one way or another that this happened during the bergdahl case. that's why we have to be careful, so we don't impugn

those who didn't do wrong. >> i only have a minute left. let me just cut to the chase. if the military conducts its full investigation and determines that sergeant bergdahl -- determines sergeant bergdahl is a deserter, what's the penalty for that? >> sir, in war time, and there is some debate whether this has been officially declared as a war, in war time, that can be punishable up to death. there are various forms of ucmj punishment, obviously less than that, but to your point, sir, there has been a lot of discussion of rush to judgment and i would postulate that at least i would have reacted very differently. i know specialist full would have reacted very differently if this had been handled appropriately in the first few days after his release with the accusations of hero and served with distinction.

>> mr. waltz, i'm grateful for the distinction in your approach. in all sincerity, i'm glad you made that comment. i would just finish with this last question. as you point out, there are a whole range of punishments under the uniform code of military justice. is one of those punishments subcontracting out to the taliban to decide how to punish someone? i yield back. >> you may answer the question yes or no. if you can. >> mr. chairman, i'm not sure i understand the question. >> okay. the gentleman does yield back his time. the chair will recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, for five minutes. >> mr. and mrs. andrews, i am deeply sorry for your loss. nothing will bring back your son darryn but hopefully the truth, which i would like to get at in the next five minutes, will help salve the wounds that no doubt are still with you. for the record, i would like to corroborate what specialist full and mr. waltz have said about the impact on missions across

afghanistan. i was in the province where we saw the diversion of air assets to search for private bergdahl. second, i would also like to stipulate for the record that if there were no doubt private bergdahl had been captured heroically on the field of battle trying to save his fellow americans, i would still think trading five senior taliban commanders was a bad idea. likewise, even though all evidence points towards his desertion, it would still be the right thing to do to try to rescue him, as specialist full and lieutenant andrews did. and of course, he deserves his day in court according to his chain of command without unlawful command influence from this president or any civilian leaders or general officers in the pentagon. now, mr. jacobson, would you trade khalid shaikh mohammed for private bergdahl? >> congressman, that -- >> reclaiming my time, it's a simple yes or no question.

>> i don't think that there are simple yes or no questions like that. >> reclaiming my time, i gather by your unwillingness to answer the question, you realize that you cannot answer it. the president's senior deputy security advisor said that he would not. so i guess that means under those circumstances, the president would have been leaving private bergdahl behind. moving to specialist full, you say in your statement that you were part of alpha team. were you on the same team as private bergdahl? >> same platoon, same squad, same team. >> so down to the lowest level for those of you that don't know, that's a four man fire team. >> we were one man short. >> three man. were you his team leader at the time? >> no, i was not. >> okay. so you were among the one or two people in the platoon who had been working most closely with him and seen him in action day after day after day. >> yes. >> okay. i have heard numerous reports that private bergdahl sought out and had civilian afghanistan friends, something i saw commonly in afghanistan and

iraq, soldiers engaging in conversation, oftentimes innocent, with children, maybe dining on base with afghan security officers. is that an accurate report, that he had these civilian friends in and around? >> yes. >> you testified or you say in your testimony that a cleric and teacher saw him crawling as well as children and you heard over the radio via an interpreter an american was looking for someone in afghan village who spoke english and wanted to talk to the taliban. if he had numerous civilian afghan friends, is it curious to you that he would ask them where the taliban is, rather than simply hide out with them? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> if private bergdahl left his post and intended as you say to wander across the mountains, perhaps to india, do you think it's curious that he would be asking his friends in afghanistan where the taliban is, rather than just hanging out and hiding with his friends? >> yes. >> tactics, techniques and

procedures, ttps, that describes how we conduct operations, what is the established order for conducting any particular task or operation, is that correct? >> yes. >> in the missions after private bergdahl's disappearance, did it appear that the afghan enemy had greater knowledge of your unit's ttp such as where you park after an ied or how you react to an ambush? >> i don't know if they had greater knowledge after he did disappear. i don't know if another player moved into the area or whatnot but after he did disappear, yeah, the ambushes picked up, cover and concealment was used. they hit us hard after he left. ieds were moved in different directions and they were, instead of taking a tire or front end off a vehicle, they were hitting direct hits. >> that would be consistent with private bergdahl being held in captivity by taliban or haqqani network and breaking under interrogation and sharing those ttps, correct?

>> i don't know. i wasn't there while he was, you know, held under captivity. i don't know what he told them. i wasn't there. >> could also be consistent with the fact that he willingly shared those ttps with the taliban or haqqani network, correct? >> like i said, i don't know what he told them, what he didn't tell them. i wasn't there. >> when you were conducting missions in the days and weeks after his disappearance, did any of your ncos or platoon leader, company commander, raise the possibility that private bergdahl might be a security risk himself if you were to find him on the battlefield? >> i don't -- our main focus at that point was just trying to find him and get him back. didn't matter how, who or when. that was our main focus from the time he left until about two and a half months later, it was every day trying to find this guy. >> were you asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement as part of your article 15-6 investigation? >> i was asked to sign a media gag order. there was other people in my platoon that were asked to sign an official nda with a field grade officer present that

witnessed them sign it. >> mr. waltz -- >> your time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jacobson, obviously we have heard testimony today and there have been some reports of some unusual behavior attributed to sergeant bergdahl. obviously, our great american soldiers overwhelmingly are able to sustain the stresses and difficulties of combat without exhibiting unusual behaviors that have been described both during this hearing and in the media. is there a system or process in place to evaluate the behavior of a soldier to make a determination as to whether or not it's related to the combat operations or related to his or her service? >> congressman, speaking for my own experience, the first line of defense when you have a soldier who is a problem or not

doing things right is his chain of command. that could include their ncos and the officers above them. there are also during my time in afghanistan, there were a great deal -- there was a great deal of effort expended to make sure that there were preventive mental health clinics in places where soldiers could go. i cannot speak to the specifics of any of this with regards to bergdahl, though. >> but there's a system in place to -- to monitor members of the armed forces, to ensure that we are understanding the impact of being in combat and the stresses of their service? >> that's my understanding. especially over the last decade. >> and in addition to that, one of the reasons we -- there's a process to conduct a hearing and an investigation and a review of those facts to make a determination as to whether or not someone has deserted or something else is going on. is that right? >> absolutely. >> and there's a process that will happen in fact in this case as it relates to this individual. >> in fact, the department of

defense earlier this week announced that there will be a two-star general who will be leading the overall investigation. we have heard army chief of staff odierno say there will be a full investigation and that was echoed by chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. >> so we have, in addition to that, we have this other principle about ensuring that we leave no soldier behind as part of kind of the warrior ethos, part of the soldiers' creed. it's a deeply held american belief and practice that we leave no soldier behind and we do everything we can to secure the release of any american who is caught in time of war, correct? >> that is something that i believe in. that is something that i think that even if you don't like the circumstances of someone being captured, you believe it's necessary to go and get them. leave no one behind. >> so why wouldn't we do this hearing, investigation and all the kinds of things that are going to happen now before we secure the release of an american?

isn't that what -- couldn't we do it that way? >> i'm not sure i understand your question or comment. >> my point is, we can't conduct an investigation, the kind of investigation that is required and that is under way, prior to securing the release of the prisoner of war in most instances. >> i think that would be very difficult, because you want to interview the individual captured. that's why as i said before, there was an initial investigation that was by definition, incomplete. >> right. so it makes sense then that we do everything we can to secure the release of every american prisoner of war, and then if in fact an investigation proves that they have done something improper or engaged in some misconduct, they will of course be required -- be punished in an appropriate way and in this case, if in fact this individual turns out to be having deserted under the military code of justice, he could face up to, you said, a death sentence.

>> yes. i think -- now, i understand that death is a possible punishment, too. i would note that the last american deserter prosecuted, charles jenkins, he had left his post on the dmz in korea, demilitarized zone in korea in he came back to the united states, he was court-martialed sentenced to 25 days, and that comes after the investigation and after charges are referred and there's a trial and all. >> and doctor, my final question is, what do you think the impact would be on our american military if our men and women did not know that this country was committed to securing their release and undertaking every imaginable effort to bring them home? >> i think first that would shatter the bonds of trust between the soldiers and the american people and chain of command. secondly i think it could be an enormous propaganda coup for our

enemies when they have these people in captivity that we don't care about. it will signal in many ways that we no longer are committed to our men and women in uniform. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cook, colonel cook for five minutes. >> mr. andrews, i know it's tough to be here. as one who's been in combat, the second hardest duty, probably the hardest duty is to actually go up to the parents or the spouses and to tell them that their son or daughter is no longer with them. that's very tough, and you have my heartfelt condolences. specialist, if you could bear with me, some of the questions, i understand his weapon was left

behind. >> that is correct. >> all his ammunition? >> ammunition, night vision, his plate carrier. all sensitive items were left behind. a couple days before that he asked another platoon member what would happen if one of his sensitive items went missing? would that certain soldier get in trouble? that certain soldier responded with yes, so bergdahl left all his sensitive items. >> did he have access to radio f freqs? >> yes, just the frequencies, they were all preprogrammed into the radio. >> standard procedure, when something happens you change your radio frequencies. >> okay. any maps or gps systems that went with him. >> i don't know if he had a map, but gps would be sensitive equipment. he didn't have that. >> i think there's been a lot of talk about desertion and everything else. correct me if i'm wrong, but usually in a situation like that, desertion is pretty much

an a democratic min term because one of the elements you have to prove is permanent desertion. i don't know all the instances that i had, and i was a legal cipher when i came back, normally just unauthorized absence, because you have to prove permanent desertion from the unit am i correct? >> correct. awol turns into desertion after 30 days. >> administratively normally, so, but once they turn themselves in or what have you, that turns into -- okay. a couple things in terms of just trust in the unit. i get the impression that the unit itself -- and i really believe in the code of conduct, i believe in taking care of everybody in the unit, and to give your life for somebody like that, but i get your feeling you

lost full trust and confidence in that individual. that he would be on your right or left flank? >> the rest of the platoon we were brothers itches no, i meant the attitude of this individual that was missing in action. >> he walked off on his own accord. if he never walked off, he never would have been held in captivi captivity. i don't know how he felt about us, but we all felt strongly we would give our lives for him. >> in terms of the taliban -- i'm not going to get into the surprise that we weren't notified, but just an impact on a combat unit that is fighting that organization, and then suddenly, for whatever reason,

that five of their top leaders, five of the ones that call the strategy, five of the ones that kill americans, five of the ones that are involved in terrorism are released. what kind of psychological impact do you think that would have to the unit, aside from bergdahl? >> well, if -- if my high ranks members of my organization were released, i would feel good about getting my top-level guys back, personally. >> i understand that, but from the standpoint of the fact that the taliban -- you're basically the enenemy you're trying to track down and find, everybody else, that the impact they're back there calling the shots. >> would that have a demoralizing impact on the unit? if you were still with that unit? of course -- >> no, i think american forces are going to do whatever they can every single day to do what they're supposed to do. i don't think they're worried about anybody else. >> okay, mr. walls, in terms of

permanent impact on policy, in regards to have we set a precedent by doing this? >> i believe we have, congressman. i believe we have set a dangerous precedent. i would encourage this body to look closely at future efforts to, and calls to close guantanamo. we had they gentlemen detained. men and women gave their lives to detain them. now, unfortunately, i believe men and women will give their lives to capture or kill them once again. >> thank you. i yield back. i thank the panel. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentlemen from california, mr. vargas, for five minutes. >> again, thank you for holding this hearing. i want to add my condolences to the andrews family, sir, to yourself and your wife. i hope that the chemotherapy that we heard about just a little while ago is successful, sir, and your son obviously

clearly was a hero, and thank god for him. specialist, too, i want to thank you for our service to our nation. mr. walls, also for the great service you have done. mr. jenkins, i want to ask you a bit, earlier on everyone was thanked for your service except to you, doumpl that? do you remember that? >> i heard a lot of thanks for service. >> what was your service? at one point everyone was thanked but you. i thought you were in uniform for a while. >> i did. i enlisted in the reserve from 1993 through 2001, with service in bosnia. i then took a u.s. navy commission as an intelligence officer, and continued to serve in the navy reserve today. >> okay. thank you. i thought so. i wasn't sure about that. i just wanted to make sure. i also want to thank you for your service. >> you're welcome, congressman. >> obviously the issue here is the principle i think of, do we

exchange? do we negotiate? do we leave people behind? obviously we've read a lot about what politicians say. i won't take the time to read it. i was going to read from the congressional record, because it's interesting what politicians say when it's beneficial to them and there's lots of interesting things being said, but i would like to know what the military think being this. mr. waltz, you seem to have a good ear to what the joint chiefs of staff and others are saying. what do they say about this deal? are they criticizing it? are they in favor of it? have they been critical of it? do you know what they have said or what they believe? >> congressman, we have civilian oversight of the military and the most senior leaders are supportive of this father, i can tell you anecdotally, they're just as furious and resentful as we were at the time. i think if things had been handled differently, there had

been a quiet reunion with the family and sergeant bergdahl -- immediately there hadn't been a rush to judgment to call him a hero and tell the world he served with distinction, you would have seen a much more muted reaction. >> it's not necessarily the principle of getting him back. i was very curious when i listened to you, and you said what i believe -- i don't want to put words in your mouth, but i believe you said something we were out there looking for him, and we should have, though we revented it, we were doing it. it sounded like you were doing what you thought we should have done. >> that's right. i don't know if many folks debate the principle that we should get every american back. i think what's debated and what's controversial is, one, his treatment when he -- when it was announced, but then two, the price we paid. i personally believe the price was too high. some people draw the line at abu shake muhammad, i draw the line at the top five senior taliban members that were requested by

the taliban to come back. >> thank you, sir, for your testimony. what about that notion? do you know where the joint chiefs of staff, where are they on this? are they against it? is the military in favor of it? inch i can only refer back in terms of the serving military leadership to the public statements made by chairman of the joint staff dempsey, general odierno and others, but two of my personal heroes, who have retired, general jim mad is, and general crystal, have been unequivocal for that concept and i'm proud to stand where they are on this. i do understand that some feel that it's the right thing to do, but they don't have to like it. there are a lot of missions in the military that soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, are happy to do, they are professionals, and they don't like it. what makes our nation great, i've spoken to individuals who are very content with