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 this, and

didn't have a problem doing it, but i would find it strange if there was any less disagreement over the how much one enjoyed having to do it or whether or not we should have done it? i would be surprised if there wasn't that disagreement in the military. >> one of the things i find odd right here is seems like no one is disagreeing with the principle. it was just how it was handled, how it was handled, you know, saying he was a hero, given the rose garden deal and all that. it doesn't seem line the principle is one -- correct me if i'm wrong. it sounds like the principle is one you agree with. >> it's the principle and the price we paid. i would argue we'll have to pay again to deal with these gentlemen in the future. >> and congressman, i think that it was a good price, and i think it was worth the risk to get sergeant bergdahl back home. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr.

desantis. you said, well, maybe they thought beheading bergdahl would have been better, we can't say that. do you honestly think if they thought beheading bergdahl would help them, that they would have not done it in a second? they did this, they got those men back, because they want those men back in command. of course it was better for them. so i thought that comment was just -- struck me as totally offbase. let me ask you this. do we have troops in afghanistan right now? >> yes, congressman. >> and so you had referenced troops who have been left behind. we can argue whether bergdahl left his unit behind, and i agree with specialist fuller, but if we still have troops there, who have we left behind? we're still fighting the conflict. it's not over yet. so the nothing that somehow we

had not done this trade that means, quote, we left him behind is other nonsense. what we have done is we've replenished the enemy in wartime when we still have fighters in there, and those individuals will be back on the battlefield, even if you believe this qatar year, they'll be back while we still under the president's timetable still have troops there. so we have not left anybody behind, and i think mr. waltz hits it right on the head about the price you pay. does it help or harm the security interests of the united states? i would refer to people like my colleague sam johnson, who was a medal of honor winner, one of the most respected men in this body, prisoner of war, he said absolutely not, this should not have been done. and if he was a prisoner of war, he would not have wanted to go back if it meant harming the security interests of his country. when i talk to veterans in my district and people who were p.o.w.s, they say the same

thing. of course we don't want to leave anyone behind, but we don't harm the country and put everyone else at risk to do that. mr. andrews, did your son darren get honored at the white house for service. >> knolls. >> and you were never invited for a rose garden ceremony? >> no, sir. >> i think veterans had the visceral -- because it was done to say we got a hero back, susan rice, honor and distinction in order to divert the public's attention from the price that we paid. they didn't want the public focusing on the taliban five. they wanted the public focusing on we brought a soldier home. so they had to inflate his service in order to try to do that. it was an attempt at a deception of the public, and i think it struck -- me as a veteran and a lot of my folks in my district were very, very upset about that. let me ask you this. the army lied to you basically about how your son died,

correct? >> they at the least, at the very barest, didn't tell the whole story. >> knowing that, knowing you didn't get the whole story, do you have confidence with this bergdahl matter, we hear we have to let the military decide, but do you have confidence that they're going to do an investigation that's impartial and adequate? implts my personal feeling is if they will let the military do it and leave the politics out of it, i think they will do it. >> do you think that if there is a high ranks flag or general officer whose career could be impacted about how that case -- >> well, that's putting politics back in it. >> i think unfortunately buns -- i'm a former jag, j.a.g. prosecutor, so i'm worried about how it's working out. specialist full, do you think that mr. bergdahl deserves an honorable discharge from the army? >> no, i do not. it's a slap in the face for those who did deserve, who upheld their oaths, didn't

desert, and he gets the same benefits. >> if this case gets diverted and he's not actually found guilty at and gib a punitive discharge, is it your understanding he would then be entitled for back pay for all the years that he was gone? >> yeah, he would be entitled back pay, which i think is around $300,000, college benefits, v.a. health care benefits, everything a veteran gets with honorable discharge. >> so you think that given what happened, you know, if you were advising a prosecutor as to what to ask for the penalty, would a dishonorable discharge be one of the things they would have the judge for. >> yeah, reduce in rank, and discharged without honor, is what i would recommend. >> i have been involved in the military justice system. there is a lot of politics involved when you get at that level. and i think it's important that this is transparent.

i think congress needs to conduct oversight, you know, how nadal hassan was handled to me was a travesty it took that long and he got over $300,000 just sitting in the brig. i appreciate the witnesses and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes ms. frankel for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. poe. just to mr. and mrs. andrews, my heart breaks for you. i am so sorry, sorry that you have to be here, and i want to try not to politicize this really for your benefit. to the other gentlemen, really thank you again for your service. i cannot tell you how much, as a mother -- i don't want to keep hoisting my son up, but i understand your bravery, your selflessness, just thank you, thank you, thank you. my first question is to dr. jack cob sen and if the others wants

to answer, fine. what can we learn from sergeant bergdahl? i know we're bringing him back. we've been talking in all types of dispairing ways about him. we don't know that much about him, or at least i don't, but what can we learn from his capture? can he give us valuable information? >> absolutely, congresswoman frankel. as i notice representative kindsinger knows from his time with sears training, a lot of what we learn about capital activity, a lot of what we can do to inokay late our personnel from stresses, comes from unfortunately experience of individuals who were held capital i have been, not just during our wars, but during peacetime detention. as we've heard from the military there will be a debriefing process. in that one can hope there is information that one day might save the life or make it less

problematic for future u.s. personnel who are held in captivity in the inevitable conflicts in the future. >> i believe, without debating the merits of how long we stayed in afghanistan, i do believe we were there because our own freedoms were jeopardized be al qaeda, and they were being protected by the taliban. i want to talk about those freedoms, and what sets us apart from the taliban? as specifically i know you probably would all agree, you go to fight for our freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and there's something else i would respectfully like to suggest, which is our due process of law that we have in this country, and what a high standard it is. so my question to all of you is,

should soldiers who misbehave is be subject to due process of law? >> well, he's a member of the armed forces. he's not subject to a civilian or federal court. >> should he be -- should he have a due process, even though it's a military court? >> that's the whole point, i'm coming forward and telling my side of the story. he's deserted, he's back. great he's back, but he needs to be accountable for his actions. >> yes, mr. waltz. >> there was a real fear, me included in the first 24 hours, that there would be, quote/unquote, ticker tape parades and rose garden ceremonies and this whole effort could get politicized and frankly the truth might be buried. that's why myself and others have come forward. >> i think we agree that due process of law, that he's entitled to that. >> absolutely.

i'm coming at this as a mother, which is do you believe all our soldiers, all these men and women who go into battle, go into war, are perfect? do we bring in perfect people? >> i hope my friend mike will agree, when you've been in charges of junior troops, hardly a day probably goes by -- it's almost like being a parent where, you know, for a parent your kids are imperfect. i'm sure my mother would say the same thing. that's why it's so important to have well-traininged ncos, good leaders in those positions to guide these troops through something that's unbelievably stressful and ensure they all get home alive. >> i do know this. i don't know much about mr. bergdahl or his family or what he was going through, what his mind was going through. i hope that will be determined

as you have suggested. i think that's fair. but i do know this. so many of our young men and women are coming home, and they have been stressed out and are mentally unstable, and i would not like to think that they would not be subject to due process if they committed a crime. with that, i just want to thank all of you for yourselves again, mr. and mrs. andrews, really i'm so sorry for your loss, and mr. chair, i waive the rest of my time. >> just so the record is clear, mr. andrews served in the united states air force. so all four of y'all, thank you for your service. >> thank you for your service, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho for five years. >> thank you, mr. chairman, panelists, i appreciate you being here. thank you for your service to our great country.

mr. and mrs. andrews. thank you for the sacrifice of what you went there. i as a grateful citizens of this great flation and a member of congress, am appreciative every day of the liberties and freedoms that we get to experience because of the willsness of people to serve, commit and dedicate to this country. i thank you. i think we should keep the narrative on the policy. the description of whether or not he was a deserter or not, as you brought up, specialist, that will come out and it will go through its due process. mr. waltz, you want in your bio, you state that you deal or provide strategic analysis and policy development for other countries. was the transfer of one american soldier for five taliban a wise decision, in your opinion? >> congressman, you know, i think we should look at this

policy as a whole and learn from it. you know, right now, a gentleman by the name of mullah abdue zakir is head of the committee that we recent, and march baghdadi, the head of i.s.i.s., was also detained in camp buca. >> so in your purpose it's probably not a wise policy to implement. dr. jacobsen, you and mr. sherman were, and you brought in israel democracy as straight for prisoners all the time. but this is not israel, i'm sure i don't need to remind you. and you were talking about a democracy, and again i know i don't have to -- it's majority rule. what i hear what the public wants to do with mr. bergdahl is

mob rule. we're a constitutional, where the minority is protected by rule of law. as ben franklin always talked about, a democracy is a two wolves and a sheep to decide what to have for lunch, the sheep always loses, so i'm thankful we're in a republic. we have to remind people we are different. and as far as mr. bergdahl, he will come home, and anytime we get an american soldier back to our country, we all should celebrate, but before we hang judgment on him, was he wrong or right, we need to look and let the military go through what they're going to go through to decide the fate of that young man. the issues i want to ask you about, do we negotiate with terrorists or not? and again, i think specialist full, you brought up, they're terrorists. it's not even a nation. it's a terrorist group again, this goes against or precedent, against our historical policy.

do you think this was a wise thing that we do or implement? >> congressman, i certainly think that it's a wise thing we retrieve sergeant bergdahl. >> no question about that. >> i want to run through a list of couple situations where we have not only negotiated with terrorists, but insurgent groups. as i mentioned, part of bringing the war in afghanistan to a conclusion will be continued discussions with the taliban, but taking a look back at our own history, not just discussions that we've had with the north koreans, we also -- >> okay. north korea, that's a country. >> they sponsor terrorism. was a state sponsor of terrorism. >> okay. >> i also look back, as i said, if you understand that there are differences between insurgents, between terrorists, between state sponsors of terrorism, the concern i think people have is this idea of ransom for a hostage. i look back even at -- i'm going

to give you allies and the u.s., ronald reagan in terms of the arms for hostages demargaret thatcher, and her secret talks with the i.r.a. sometimes you end up sitting across the table with people who have the blood of your friends on their hands to bring peace. if that's what we're seeing, then i fully support that. >> okay. let me ask you both, mr. waltz and dr. jack cob sen, did the president, by not consulting congress 30 days before, in your opinion, break the law? >> congressman, that's my understanding of the law. i'm not an expert, but my understanding is congress was to be consulted. >> i'm not a lawyer, and you're all going to argue about that statute, but i think what the president did, acting on short notice, was absolutely the right thing to do. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from texas, mr. castro. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to mr. and mrs. andrews, my condolences, and safe travels back. i represent san antonio, and thank all you gentlemen for yourself. i agree with part of mr. yoho's statement, i want to focus on the policy. the agreement that was made for sergeant bergdahl and that transfer has been made. there's still a debate about whether that was good or bad, but i think the most constructive thing we can get out of this hearing is what we do in the future. in that vein, i think there's two issues here. first, if someone deserts their unit, should we go retrieve that person? and then second, what is the appropriate deal that we should make for a soldier? and so it sounds like at least the prevailing idea is that even if somebody deserts, we should still try to retrieve that person. does anyone on the panel differ

or disagree with that principle? >> congressman, i think it comes down to a matter of intent. dr. jacobsen raised the issue, the case of mr. jenkins, who deserted into north korea. to my knowledge there were no tales to bring him home until he appeared 40 years later in japan. >> >> i know it has notten adjudicated whether he deserted or not. i know there was some evidence within -- among the other soldiers that suggested perhaps he did, but assuming for the sake of argument that he did, did that mean if somebody deserts we shouldn't go get him? should we change policy the next time? >> i think the problem that's been stated, they brought him home to a hero's welcome. we're not the only people that knew that he walked on off on his own acured. there was an original investigation done. it's still open, because they have to get his side of the story, but everyone knew he walked off on his own.

>> assuming he does desert, and there's no argument, then you're saying still bring him home, just don't celebrate him? >> why would you call him a hero where there's somebody like his son who pushed somebody down and gave his life for another one who is a hero. >> but in terms offal policy, you would say go get that person. >> i don't know. i'm not that high on the tote many pole. >> then to my second question, what is the appropriate deal we should make to have a soldier returned, right? there is a big issue here over whether you negotiate with terrorists or only nation states, but i think that the difficulty we're running into here is our enemies in this common era are no longer just nation states. they are groups like al qaeda, haqqani network and others. so let me ask you, mr. waltz, because you were both a soldier and a policy expert, what deal would you have made for sergeant bergdahl?

>> congressman, you know, my own view, in any association both sides should walk away unhappy, and in this case the enemy walked away happy, declaring victory, and received exact reply what they asked for. i don't think that was a good negotiation on our part. >> how does that translate. if you were writing policy, what would you have exchanged for sergeant bergdahl? >> there's a number of lower-level detainees held in afghanistan and the other places a lot has been about trading numbers. for me the issue here is quality. >> i mutual give 100 people for one person if they are lower-level folks? >> i don't like it i think that's a policy issue that had to be debated but these five, that decision was bad. >> did we get anything in exchange for the prisoners released from gitmo by president

bush? >> not that i'm aware of, but in the news report i can remember from that time period, there was talk about you know, political deals and that, but nothing like the bergdahl situation. >> that was just a straight release essentially of those folks? >> yes. >> chairman, i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman from texas. the chair recognizes another gentleman from texas, mr. weber. >> thank you. specialist full, bhald you say was the more reaeal -- more real -- >> i'm not in the army anymore, sir? >> would you hazard a guess? >> as far as us talking? we were very upset, like i said, with the hero's welcome. >> okay. in your opinion, would this have set up -- this agreement between enlisted officers and those

rank-and-file soldiers? or were they in pretty much agreement this was a bag deal? >> this was a bad deal. nobody in blackfoot company that would -- >> if you said say anything to president obama regarding this trade, what would you say? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> fair enough, mr. waltz, you're forewarned, same questions. what would you say would be the morale in those units? >> fairly low. in terms of your second question, i would point the president to the heroes at the end of this table. >> okay. >> they deserve the same level of treatment. >> would you advise him to make the same trade twice? >> no, congressman. i wouldn't. just to follow on the previous congressman questions, i think there were other policy issues open that weren't fully explored. more pressure on pakistan. he was held by the haqqani network described as a veritable arm of the pakistani service.

there were other openingses on the table besides a trade. >> dr. jacobsen, what would you say to the president? >> congressman, i would say good job, absolutely go do this again, bring our soldier home. >> mr. andrews after having sat here, and thank you very much, and you mrs. andrews, for being here. after sitting through this hearing, what now would you say to this committee? >> for one thing, five minutes isn't as long as it used to be. but what i would say to the committee is my son was a soldier's soldier. it doesn't matter what the assignment was, he was going to do it. and i don't believe that you have to be a perfect person to follow the military code of justice. you have a book right there. read the book and do what it says. it's not that complicated. but do not let my son -- to me,

this situation with us not being told the whole truth and then trading a private for five high-ranking taliban, exactly why did my son die? tell me one more time. because i don't know what we've accomplished. >> if you could say that to the president, is that what you would say to him? >> yes. >> now the hard question, so forgive me. if you could get your son back by trading five more of those senior taliban? >> if my son had been a deserter, then no, absolutely not. but my son was a man of honor, and i would do almost anything. >> thank you, folks. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back his

time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank each of you gentlemen for your service. as certainly mr. andrews, i want to let you know, as someone who has worn the uniform that many americans feel like the actions by the administration and the president have diminished your son's service and your and his sacrifice. i will let you know that i'm in that opinion, but i also want to let you know he has done a great thing for the men that he served with, and the ones that are particularly alive because of his actions and a very grateful nation. so i just want to thank you for your sacrifice as well. mr. jacobsen, i've heard you say a couple times the end of war or prisoner swaps. has the taliban as far as you know, stated that they consider the war to be coming to a close?

>> congressman, i was referring to the end of conflict in the second world war in korea specifically. >> so the paradigm is not the same, is my point. we might be drawing down, but the taliban, as far as you know, are they going to continue to fight? >> the taliban have been in talks with the united states for several years. >> do we have any reason to believe they won't continue to fight when we stop? >> i don't believe we are stopping the fight, congressman. >> we're just disengaging? the war will still continue as far as you know? >> we're till working with the afghans. >> i got it. when you say that these folks that we released have been so long gone from the battlefield that they can't be relevant, are you aware that mr. baghdadi, who's currently running i.s.i.s. was released in 2005. and now it's 2014. is he still relevant? >> i can't comment to a specific situation. >> i can comment. he's damned relevant, sir. let me move on.

mr. full, there was an investigation regarding mr. bergdahl's absence conducted at some point. i imagine you gave sworn statements? >> yes, 15-6. >> do you think that the army is aware of the circumstances, his circumstances of departure? >> yes. >> you do. and i do as well. i would like to turn to mr. mister waltz at this point. understanding your circumstances if captured, what is your understanding? if you were captured on the battlefield, of what we would do and what we wouldn't do, whattic expect? >> we deploy knowing the high likelihood of being captured, and comes with that understanding that ransoming will not be paid, and there would not be swaps for us. the united states will do everything it can to get us back, but there's limits to what the country is going to do. and i personally would not want anything done that's going to harm our ongoing national

security or endanger my fellow soldiers. >> were you ever given the impression, when you took the oath or after that, that the united states would jeopardizes our national security on your behalf? >> no, and nor would i want that to happen. >> you're a special operator. a june 3rd, the a.p. reported that the united states government knew the whereabouts of mr. bergdahl through three sources, uas, satellite and human intelligence. you're a special operatoror, you got out in 2009. it's in and out 2014. things have changed a bit, but i know you stay involved and in touch with your community. myopint is the options. we had some options on the table. we chose to trade five high-value targets for one service member, right? that we wanted to free and have come back home, which is laudable to have him come back home, it is the right thing to

do. do you have any lack of confidence in your ability of your unit, of the united states army the with the capability, if we few where he was, your ability, if tasked with the mission and given the resources, so go retrieve that soldier? >> i don't know the details. >> i know you don't. >> if we knew where he was and we were confident, and the risks were evaluated, absolutely we have the capable to go get him. >> so you already spoke about the different options that we had or didn't have, and you don't think this was the best one? . if we knew where he was, can you think -- can you come up with some scenario, when we have people on the ground that do what you did for a living, that we wouldn't exercise that option? >> the only scenario that comes to mind, sir, is that this was part of a brought are policy initiative to open up talks with the taliban. that this was a confidence-building measure, and this has been discussed for some

time now, that potential this trade would be a confidence-building measure as a first step towards future talks. that's the only plausible scenario that i can come up with. >> my time is expiring. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> first of all, to respond to my colleague across the aisle about due process, all of us agree on due process. the conversation we're having today is not about due process. the conversation today is about the decision the administration made for the five taliban members in exchange for sergeant better dahl. we all believe in due process. we're americans. mr. waltz, i think it was you who indicated that you had a conversation about your country will never leave you behind. i don't know if it was or specialist full who mentioned you thought it was your country won't leave any honorable man

behind? is that your comment? >> yes, it was. >> was sergeant bergdahl left behind? >> no. he walked off on his own. >> he left. so he wasn't left behind -- >> he left us behind. >> right. and dr. jacobsen, you have indicated that the fight is not over, right? we're going to continue this fight. it's not over. peace hat not been declared with the taliban? >> that's correct, congressman. so with the war or the fight that's going to continue, it seems to me you have made the argument that we're all putting our arms down, the conflict is going to end, this exchange made sense. that's what we do. world war ii, we put down our arms, everyone exchange prisoner, everyone is happy, but that's not the case. you've said -- we took someone who allegedly walked away from his post in exchange for five

high-level taliban members. and the fight continues. am i wrong on this? >> the fight continued in korea after president prisoner exchanges. the fight continued after the exchanges in 1944. the fight will continue in afghanistan. my argument is that the risk of putting these five individuals on the battlefield is mitigated by a number of factors, to include all the accomplishments that we have seen in afghanistan over the past several years. >> i'll get to the risk in a second, but in regard to those -- the prior swaps that have been made, those swaps have been made with nation states, correct? do you have an example where we've had swaps with a non-nation state before this one? >> the examples i have, and you term this a swap, but the examples i have of negotiations -- >> we exexchanged prisoner with a nonnation state, or better yet, for a deserter if that's what the military finds him to

be. >> the closest i can think of is after the ballots of mogadishu, and to get michael durant back. >> we don't have an example. >> that was with muhammad farah dhadi, which was not a nation state. >> with regard to the threat this -- i listened to mr. andrews talk about his son and how he may hope he would be able to makes that exchange to bring his own son back. i think every heart breaks in here thinking about what his family has gone through and the sacrifice his son made for his country. do you feel pretty comfortable that with these five taliban members released, that we went have another hearing like of another american family who lost a son or daughter who's over fighting on behalf of their country because of these five that were released? or do you feel pretty comfortable that america is a safer place and american men and

women are safer? >> our men and women who put on a uniform are always at risk, regardless of what happened or will happen. >> that's not my question. >> i'm comfortable with the judgment made by our military leaders that all the risks involved, the risks of potentially these individuals ending back up on the battlefield, the risks the not getting bergdahl, i'm comfortable the assessment they made and the recommendations they made are the right one. >> i would disagree, sir. mr. waltz, i think you said the taliban got their top five draft picks. in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. >> yes, sir. >> good trade? >> absolutely not. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin yields back his time. the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've been running in and out of meetings like everybody else here. we're overwhelmed. i'm sorry if i cover any

territory that's already been covered here. let any note that i disagree with the statement that our policy has been to do everything we can to get back a prisoner. that's not the case. that is not policy for our government. everything we can? no, even the people who are in the field totally understand that we're not going to do things that will further put other americans at severe risk in order to get them back. they understand that, and that's part of why they're heroes, and that's part of the reason mr. andrews' son is a hero. he knew he was taking a chance and even if he was captured, we would not be doing things that would put the american people at risk to get him back home. so i want to make sure that is a significant point for people to understand in the discussion of this. second of all, i would like to point out that there are other

alternatives to try to get these guys back, or men become, mr. bergdahl, than just giving up these five leaders of the taliban. we could have, for example seen no evidence. mr. jacobsen, have you seen any evidence that there was pressure put on pakistan in order to get the taliban to return this prisoner? >> congressman rohrabacher, i'm not aware of the specifics of those negotiations. >> so you're unaware and i'm unaware. i've been looking, there's no indication here that this administration didn't even put pressure on the major supporter, the i.s.i. in pakistan to do what they could do. instead they gave up five murderous leaders. we know that one of them was perhaps engaged in the strategizing for 9/11 that result indeed 3,000 americans being slaughters in front of our face.

he's being let go. then there's there's mullah muhammad fassel. i knew about this man, i you about him a long time ago. he was in fact captured. this you might say this was the second time he was released, because he was captured early on in 2001 after 9/11. he was put into a french fort with hundreds of other taliban leaders, and taliban fighters, and there is a tradition in afghanistan. the tradition is it's almost the law that the people live by. it is their core principles as afghans, and that is, once you were captured, you do not try to overpower the person who has captured you. the reason they have that as part of their law is because over the centuries, they would have had to kill automatic of their prisoners if they didn't uphold that. it's part of their honor as a

person to not -- once you're captured, you do not try to overcome your captor. what happened in this case for mr. fassel, yeah, i'm sure he's already promised us he wouldn't go back to doing something and causing -- putting our people at risk, but at that time he led an uprising against his captors, they murdered about 50 afghans -- who i entried chair poe to general dostum before, and they murdered the guys holding him capital i have been, but they also murdered a cia officer named mike span. i visited that spot. i visited the spot where mike span had been murdered. this is the guy that we are -- one of the five guys writer releasing. we're releasing a man who has already murdered the first real american to lose his life in the afghan war, we're releasing him

now. you think that's going to maybe indicate that we're strong? does this release indicate that we are strong and we are -- that they're going to have to deal with the united states of america? terms of our military strength? no, they're going to deal with people who they think are weak and coward and are willing to be capture more americans in order to cut more deals. this is a travesty. this is the president of the united states has maybe got himself into -- into a position that, i don't know if may he thinks of himself as a peacemaker. i think this will have a -- and mr. chairman, i've got six seconds, and i would actually would like to give our witness a chance to retort to that. >> quickly.

>> respectfully i disagree. >> fine. yes. that's it. thank you very much. at the chairman's pleasure, i'm happy to continue. >> no, the time has expired. thank you, though. the chair recognizes the contrafrom georgia. mr. collins, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize. this is one of those days when everything goes long. again, mr. anderson, i'm air force reserve, i'm a chaplain, i served in the iraq. i have been on the unfortunate end of the door that you opened, and i understand this all too well. the issues that come up for me, and some of this may be follow-up on my colleague who just mentioned, but mr. jacobsen, you brought up before the fact that they're not going back to the same afghanistan that they left, and this they would not have the probable impact they could have had then. what leads you -- what intelligence, what, you know,

information, what would have you to believe that they couldn't get spun up quickly in a country that's not changed a lot in 400, 500, 600, 700 years? what would cause you to believe a that? >> congressman, in my experience in afghanistan both as an intelligence office and later on as a civilian adviser, i do believe there have been a great number of changes if just in the last decade alone. for example, i believe that most of the networks that these individuals had when they were a force fighting against the northern alliance no longer exist. many of their friends are dead. many of the taliban leadership are dead, and i also believe that the afghan people have changed. you have seen just in the recent elections, this open defiance of threats to kill people who would go vote. 40% of the voters, i believe, were women who were told do not

do this. >> we saw a great deal of turnout in the iraqi elections, too and right northeasterly we're looking at a breakdown of a civil wart. is it i'm not sure you're actually getting there. we'll have to probably respectfully have a difference of opinion here. i believe they may not walk back into the same structure they had before, but i do not believe it will take them have been to build from scratch. there's a reason they wanted them. there's a reason they wanted they five. the other situation i would like maybe some general discussion about is something that keeps coming up here. we're drawing down our action. we're drawing down this war. someone basically talked about the fact that we're dealing with the taliban. we're dealing with terrorist organizations in this global war on terrorism. not the global war on afghanistan, not the global war

on a country, and granted when we ended world war ii, there was country state verse country state. we're not in that situation any more. i'm curious, when does the fact that we're finding -- and i don't believe the taliban or al qaeda or enough networks have changed their opinion of the west? do they still have the desire to reek havoc on the west? >> i believe our actions in afghanistan have split views amongst the taliban. i don't think there's a single unified viewpoint anymore. interesting, but i think among the larger terrorist networks as a whole, i think there's a vast determination ago we go forward, so i'm not sure where we draw the line now with dealing with, negotiating with, however we want to do this. specialist, talk about this for a second. given the fact that we traded -- and there's somebody who will argue that this was the end of

the ward, we had to do it, a political outcome at some point. but is this a price you ever would have envisioned paying if for, someone who walked off or didn't walk off? is this what we're sort of looking at? not that we give up, but the price we give up. >> we're still at war with the taliban, whether people want to admit it or in the, just because we stop fighting doesn't mean they stop. when i signed an oath, it was stating that i knew there would be a certain price up to a point that the united states would pay to give me back. if that was me, no, you could have left me over there. i would not have wanted you to trade five high-level taliban operatives for myself. >> the curious question for me at this point is five was the price this time, what's the price next time? the president stepping down? cabinet member stepping down? congress giving them more money? what's the price?

we're not dealing with a nation state here. we're dealing with thugs. we're dealing with rogues. we're dealing with now the same ideological bent that is going through many of the middle eastern countries, and iraq is simply a forerunner of what i'm fearful is going to afghanistan. i appreciate you being here. this is very much of a concern for many folks, because they do not understand why this happened the way it did, given the fact that most believe this war is not over and we will see these guys again one way or another. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair will recognize the ranks members for one additional question and then itself for an additional question. >> in 1944, when we did a prisoner exchange, it was with the nazis, and it was. >> would the gentleman yield? would they also recognize that the nazi government at that time represented germany as a nation state?

>> yeah, but if you think. >> but al qaeda never represented anyone as a nation state. >> al qaeda did control and govern with the acquiescence of the united states, the vast majority of afghanistan until 9/11, but more importantly, if you want to create groups that are an anathema to the united states, i would put the nazis to the top. in any case, i have not yielded any further. dr. jacobsen, only an investigation is going to disclose the real facts behind sergeant bergdahl's appearance and capture, but we've heard substantial evidence that sergeant bergdahl acted in an inappropriate and inexplicable manner. can you describe the kinds of stresses that somebody in sergeant bergdahl would have

faced in afghanistan, and whether that would cause someone -- not everyone but some, to act in an inexplicable manner? i realize the vast majority of our soldiers, marines, et cetera are subjected to those pressures, and do not act inexplicably. >> can i have permission to speak? >> yes. >> you're asking dr. jack cob sen what situation bergdahl was there, i was with him at the same location. i could give you a firsthand account of what he was going through, because i went through the exact same conditions. >> well, i'll ask you then to respond to the question first, and then dr. jacobsen to respond second. i was asking more in a general sphere as to what you face in afghanistan, but obviously you know the specifics. >> we were at an observation post, it was primitive.

we had to eat meals ready to eat, which are heated up with water. it was very hot, very dirty without showers for certain days, didn't get phone calls or any comfort of home, but it doesn't affect anyone else there. we all continued the mission and upheld our oath. everybody deals with mental issues in some form or another, and everybody else still came back from that same platoon. so there's nothing, in my opinion that was so bad that forced him to walk off on his own accord caused by anything going on over there. he walked off on his own acured. >> dr. jacobsen, obviously the vast majority of those in his unit were not affected to the point where they engaged in inappropriate behavior, but -- and obviously anyone in afghanistan is subject to being shelled or subject to an ied at just about any time.

can the describe the pressures that people are under and whether that could explain the inexplicable? >> well, congressman, i the str of combat are tremendous. from my own experience which was not as near far forward in deployment as either my colleagues to the right, you still have fear. fear of being kidnapped. fear of being shot at and being shelleding with mortared, what have you. there's tremendous sleep deprivation from being on -- whether it's long combat patrols or being woken in the action. i do agree, that you've raised perhaps, one of the most important points. just because there's combat stress doesn't excuse actions such as walking away from one's post. but this is exactly why you have to have the full investigation

to determine what happened and why it happened in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again and hold those individuals who need to be held accountable accountable in the military justice system. >> to correct can record. i said al qaeda when i meant to say the taliban. i yield back. >> the chair has one additional question for all four of you. what i understand the law is, that before people are released from guantanamo bay, the secretary of defense must explain why it is in the national security interest of united states to release that specific prisoner. assume that is the law. and from your point of view, what was the national security interest or do you believe there

was a national security interest of the united states in releasing those five individuals? dr. jacobson. do you believe there was a national security interest of the united states? >> yes, i do, congressman. >> mr. waltz. >> congressman, i believe america is less safe and the world is dangerous with the release of those individuals. >> czar jnt? >> i believe america is less safe and the world is also, in more danger. >> and mr. andrews, i'll give you the last word. >> thank you. i believe america is less safe and i believe these five guys are going to come after us and i believe that it was a must steak to release them and that mistake to release them and it didn't serve our national interest in any way. >> i want to thank all of you for being here. ms. andrews and the committee is adjourned. thank you.

on the house floor, lawmakers working on amendments to fund the department of defense next year. just under $80 billion is currently included for the war in afghanistan. work is expected to continue tomorrow on the measure. also tomorrow, house republicans will meet at around 1:30 eastern time to elect new leadership. this coming after majority leadlea lead eric cantor and kevin mccarthy will face off against labrador and the election will be conducted by secret ballot

with the winner needing the majority of the republican caucus. c-span will flow the election including live coverage of any congressional reaction and your phone calls as well. off the floor today, the head of general motors, mabarra appeare before the house panel to address safety problems. she recalled a internal report on why it took the automaker to issue recalls frightening. here's a look! >> the report as you know is extremely thorough, brutally tough and deeply troubling. it paints a picture of an organization that failed to handle a complex safety issue and a responsible way. i was deeply sad mpbed and disturbed as i read the report. for those of us who have dedicated our lives to this company it is enormously painful to have our shortcomings laid out so vividly. no way to minimize the

seriousness of what they uncovered ppd on june 2nd, he presented the findings of his investigation to the board of directors of general motors. i will leave it to him to comment on his report but for my part i want you to know my reaction to the report and some of the actions i have taken since reviewing it. first, we have made a number of personnel decisions. 15 individuals identified in the report are no longer with the company. we have restructured our safety decisionmaking process to raise it to the highest levels of the company. addressing a key point in the report that critical information was kept from senior management. under the new system, this should never happen again. >> gm ceo mary barra said she expects an independent committee to begin processing compensation claims by august 1st. faulty ignition switch believed to be responsible for 12 deaths across the nation. you can watch today's entire

hearing any time on our website, cspan.org. coming up on friday, irs commissioner will testify before house lawmakers on hissing a as yous ongoing investigation of its targeting of conservative groups. we'll have live coverage of that hearing for you at 9 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. the thesis of the book is that there's a whole group of people in america a big part of america, that's being ignored, 4re69 behind. not included in the discussion, i think, for either party. particularly, i would argue the republican party. that's, i call them blue collar conservatives. the folks out there that are working people. most of whom don't have college degrees. folks that really, still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people of -- who understand the importance of

family and faith. believe in freedom and limited government. soable with you say, wow, those are conservative republican voters. and in many cases they're not. in fact, a lot of them aren't voted at all because they don't see either party talking to them about the concerns they have in trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. >> former pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate rick santorum argues that working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems. saturday night at 10:00 eastern part of "booktv" this weekend on c-span2 and this month on our online book club we discuss the slaves, the forgotten man. a new history of the great depression. start reading and join others to discuss at booktv.org. today, defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of

staff chair, general martin dempsey. on the budget request. answered questions about the situations in iraq and afghanistan. troop readiness, medical care for service members and veterans. and the effects of any potential future sequestration. the defense appropriation subcommittee is chaired by senator dick durbin of illinois. good morning, we receive

testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the department of defense and we welcome if leadership of the department, secretary hagel, general dempsey to present their views on the strategic and budgetary challenges facing our armed forces and mr. hail, thank you for your expertise as well. your continuing contributions make a big difference. let me congratulate the department on the capture of amed abu kata la , a tee key figure on the attack on the facilities in benghazi. an attack that cost us four american lives. i want to commend the professionalism of our men and women in uniform work alongside law enforcement and intelligence counterparts to ensure that this man will be brought to justice. we're also following several other recent events which have underscored the many challenges to american security and interest around the world. the shocking events in iraq this past week demonstrate the tletsds posed by continuing chaos in sear you giving rise to

dangerous new extremist groups. this shows that established terrorist organizations such as al qaeda and the arabian peninsula remain a serious threat. the aggressive moves by russia, and ukraine, recall the importance of u.s. security commitments to our allies, partners and friends. and finally, to draw down the u.s. forces in afghanistan, wraz serious questions about our future posture and commitments to that country. secretary hagel, general, i hope you can address these situations in your remarks. along with the security threats, the department has a longer term challenge when it comes to the budget. i've said many times, sequestration was a threat that was never supposed to happen. but it did. the shrinking budgets have meant that many important programs such as large headquarters staffs, generous contractor support contracts and generous travel policies have been changed. and cut back. but it's not clear the

department is making all of the tough choices required in this budget environment. the fiscal year 2015 defense budget plan includes 115 billion in spending between 2016 and 2019, above the bca caps. meaning that more tough choices are ahead if we do not eliminate sequestration next year. the department also proposed $26 billion quarterback h additional programs that it could not fit within its budget constraints but were viewed at high priorities for readiness, moderation and key needs. and the service chiefs proposed an additional $36 billion in programs also viewed at high priorities. lastly, it been three and a half months since the 2015 budget was submitted and congress has yet to see the overseas continue si operation and budget request. we need to do something and provide a responsible budget plan that balances investments and national defense, education, health care innovation and other national priorities.

but i'm concerned that the department of defense cannot continue to count on tens of billions of extra dollars arriving each year outside of the budget process and i'd like to know how the department intends to further tighten its budget process in light of the continuing unknowns of sequestration. despite these challenges, we can still afford to make critical investments in the defense budget with resources. many resources have embraced competition to get more bang from the taxpayer buck and even more that can be done. science and technology are critical not only to national defense but to innovation across america. dodd vejts, gps satellites, medical research, have literally touched the lives of every american whether or not they've worn a uniform. work going on today at the army research laboratory, air force research lab and office of naval research could improve our

national security. >> referee: loougsize medicine, technology and business for years to come. even in these tough budget times we have to work to afford investments in medical research for breakthrough technologies, and to increase investments in key areas and i look forward to working with yao, secretary hagel to make that happen. chair ranking member shelby is on the floor. and so at this point, i'm going to proceed to our witnesses and ask secretary hagel if he would like to open up and make a comment. your written statement will be made an official part of the record. >> mr. chairman, thank you and good morning, members of the committee, good morning. and thank you for the opportunity to talk about our fy 2015 budget. as you noted the other issues before us in the world today and in this country. we're prepared to respond to

questions regarding those specific issues. i also, on behalf of the defense department, want to thank this subcommittee in particular for your continued support of our troops and what is required to keep our troops modern, ready, capable. and that is much the focus of this budget and much of what we'll be talking about this morning. and why we presented the budget we have and why we need the budget that we'll present. mr. chairman, i particularly appreciate being here, as always, when i'm with the chairman of the joint chiefs. general dempsey. weir fortunate to have his leadership and the chiefs that not only represent our services so well but are very effective in their leadership and very

wise in their advice they give to the president. and give to me. i also want to note that bob hail, as you have recognized already. are comptroller, dod, the last five, this will be his last budget hearing. and i know he's greatly distressed by that but he's a great admirer of the congress and never gets enough time with all of you. bob hail has been particular live important to the dod in the country when we've had government shutdowns. abrupt, sequestration which you mentioned. he has been the arc teblgt and the chief operating officer to guide us through that so bob, we'll miss your leadership and what you contributed. but you deserve to escape and you all know very well his

successor, mike mccourt, who served for many years as a senior staff member on the armed services committee. this body confirmed him recently and we appreciate that so he'll replace bob. mr. chairman. you have noted and i just recognized that recent crisis in iraq, ukraine, remind us all, how quickly things can change in the world. and not for the better. and they underscore why we must assure the readiness and agility and capability of our military. that's what we'll address today. my length year-over-year submitted statement, describes our budget in detail and the rationale behind the decisions that we've come forward with presented in our budget. you mentioned the contingency operations budget, oco, per fy 2015.

it is being finalized now. i know it's late. there are some reasons for that. this oco presentation will reflect the president's zugs on a couple of new initiatives that he has announced that he's taken. and certainly, the continuation of our enduring presence in afghanistan as well. the president, as you know, recently announced a $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund which would be funded through oco. and a $1 billion european reassurance initiative also funded out of oco. i strongly support both of these for the reasons that we'll define more clearly this morning. this budget reflects, i believe, the threats, the uncertainties and the opportunities facing our country today but also,

probably, as important in the future. everyone on the committee knows that decisions made today have immense impact on what kind of military we're going to have down the road. you mentioned science and technology. that's one of the foundational dynamics of keeping our technological edge, our capability and our moderation ahead of what's out there. it also, mr. chairman, reflects the tough physical realities facing us here today and you mentioned one, of course, sequestration. the tremendous uncertainty that dod has had to deal with the last 12 months but really, the last 24 months. do we have a budget? we don't have a budget? what kind of and we've been able

to do that. last year dod's budget was cut $37 billion. and it was cut $37 billion because of sequestration. and i might remind this committee as you all know, that's in addition to the $487 billion ten-year reduction under the budget control act of 2011 that dod was already implementing. december -- but it imposes more than $75 billion over this year in this year, 2015. mr. chairman, unless congress changes the law as you all know before fy 2016, sequestration will be back as the law. and that will take another $50 billion from our budget each year through fy 2021. damaging the military's

readiness undercutting our defense strategy. our capabilities. the president's five-year budget plan provides a realistical earn the toif sequestration, projecting as you note, a $115 billion more than current law allows from 2016 to 2019. this is the minimum amount of spending that our military and leadership needs to successfully ebs cute the defense strategy. since my submitted statement explains in detail our budget request and the rationale behind the key decisions i want to focus on two critical areas. first, our decision to reduce the size of the military's structure and retire old platforms and invest in training and modernization. under the strict budget limits being imposed on dod we cannot keep our current forestructure adequately ready and modernized. readiness is our main concern. i know it's the concern of the committee.

readiness is our main concern as it must be for anyone who cares about our national security and the men and women who defend it. we cannot place our men and women in situations if they are not ready. it would be a failure, the woers failure leadership could make. so we made a strategist based on strategist priority and detailed analysis and agreed to by all the service chiefs. after 13 years of long, large to build the operations we must shipt h shift our focus on to future requirements shaped by enduring emerging threats much like we're seeing today. we must be able to defeat terrorist threats and cyberattacks. and deter adversaries with increasingly po din weapons and technological capabilities. that's why we protects funding for see were and special operations. the active duty army we proposed

drawing down by 13% over the next five years to about 440 to 450 soldiers which we believe is adequate for future demand. the chief of staff believes this is adequate for future dehand. army national guard and reserve units will remain and have to remain i vibrant part of our national defense. we've proposed drawing the reserves and national guard down by 5%. we'll continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep our soldiers the most vajs advanced, ready and capable in the world. the navy will have this under the president's budget plan and the level approved by congress. protected investments and submarines, a float stating basis. guided missile destroyers and other lethal survivable platforms. ensuring our technological edge and enabling our naval forces to

operate effectively, regardless of other nation's capabilities. we had to make some trade-offs, mr. chairman. we had to make some realistic trade offs to help keep the inventory ready and modern to reduce budget levels, the navy will set aside the cruisers for moderation retrofitting and re return them to service. this will also support a strong defense industrial base itself. a national strategic asset. the marine corp will continue the plan drawdown to 182,000 and devotebility 900 more marines to increase the embassy security. they will pain entertain the aerial dominance including the joint strike fighter and the new long range bomber and the refueling tanker. we choose -- chose to replace

the 50-year-old youtube with the unmanned global. and phase out the 40-year-old a-10, which lacks the multiemission kwapabilities of more advanced survivable aircraft. but may address compensation reform as the second issue. taking care of our people has everyone on this committee knows, means providing them with fair compensation. as well, as the training and tools they need to success in battle and return home safely. to meet those obligations under constrained budgets we need some modest reforms and structural adjustments to slow the growth and pay and certain in-kind benefits. let me clarify what the adjustments are and are not with. first we'll recommend pay increases. but the rate of growth of those increases would be slow. second, off-basing housing. off-base housing subsidies. they will continue.

today's 100% benefit would be gradually reduced but only to 95%. phasing in over several years. i would remind us, in the 1990's, the housing allowance was about 80%. third, we're not closing commissaries. we thought about phasing some out but only the ones in large metropolitan area also fully subsidize commissaries overseas and other locations. we recommend simplifying the three tri-care systems by merging them into one system and phasing in modest increases in copays and deductibles for retirees and family members to encourage the most affordable beings of care. active duty personnel health care will remain free. we will not compromise on an excess and quality of health care. under our plan, 100% of the savings from compensation reform will go towards enduring our

troops had the training and tools they need to accomplish their missions. readiness, if congress blocks these changes, without adjusting current budget caps or if sequestration remains the law, it will jeopardize the readiness and capability of our armed forces. and short chaing america's ability to effectively and decisively rerespond when global events demanded. my submitted statement, mr. chairman details how sequestration would kpree mice our national security. mr. chairman, the president's budget supports our defense strategy and it defends this country. and keeps our commitment all of our commitments to our people. the chairman, the chiefs, and i strongly support it. i look forward to your questions. >> general dempsey? >> thank you were chairman and members of the kmom. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and speak bt our defense budget for 2015.

i want to add my appreciation to undersecretary hail for his many years of service to the department and to the nation. let me begin by commenting on iraq. the men and women who served in iraq did exactly what we asked them to do. al qaeda inspired extremist raising flags over our acts embattled cities triggers in me the same thing that runs through the minds of any veteran that served there which is bitter disappointment that iraq's leaders failed to united for the good of their people. i share alarm about the future of rairk and we're developing a full range of options to help stabilize the region. let me speak to afghanistan. our men and women remain fully engaged on the mission at hand. they continue to build the institution of the afghanistan national security forces who secured the recent elections that will allow the first democratic transition of power in afghanistan's history. the decision on troop numbers beyond 2014, positions us to support afghanistan's

transition. it aligns military objectives with resources and allows us and our allies to plan for 2015 and 2016, while continuing to focus on the important work at hand this year. three months ago i met with my counterparts in brussels. the threat of the russian coers and the growing arc of instability to nato's southern flank weigh heavily on our allies and last week the joint chiefs and i met with the united kingdom's combined chief in london for the first such meeting in london since 1948. we agree that now is not the time for business as usual. we can't think too narrowly about future security challenges nor can we be too certain that we'll get it right. each of my international engagements re-affirm that u.s. military privacy is still regarded as the world's best hope for stability and prosperity. but there's a real sense that our privacy may be at risk in part by choices being made in this city on the defense budget.

as i said last year, we need time, certainty and flexibility to balance the institution and to allow us to meet the nation's needs for the future. without these things, our commitments to our allies and parters in to the defense industrial base and to the men and women who serve in uniform and their families, will be placed in jeopardy. it will undercut their reassurances that i just spent a good deal of my time delivering around the world. at the same time, this congress has demanded correctly that we be more strategic, efficient and inc. know have aive in the way we do business. this does all of these things and it's a pragmag mattic way f that can balance our national security and our fiscal responsibilities yet our efforts to reshape and reform the military continue to be rejected. we have infrastructure we don't need and with your support we should be able to die vest.

legacy weapons systems we can't afford to sustain and with your support we ought to be able to retire. personnel costs that have grown at a disproportionate ratend we out to be able to make modest adjustments to make them more affordable and sustainable over time. failing to act on these issues is a choice itself. one that will force us into an unbalanced level of cuts to our readiness in moderation. and when major portions of the budget are rendered untouchable, readiness pays to develop them and this makes our force less effective than this nation nooids it to be. if sequestration level cuts return in 2016, the options that we'll be able to provide the nation shrink and the risks will become, in my judgment, unmanageable. a reckless and unnecessary path. i know these issues weigh heavily on the mooinds of our men and women in uniform and their families and i hear able constantlynd they weigh heavily

on you. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your support and i stand ready to answer your questions. >> thank you, general dempsey. >> it's difficult to separate out the lines of questioning. there's clearly an important line of questioning related to the budget and to today's threats. they do merge at some point. and so, we have to pick and choose. but let me start with iraq. secretary hagel. 13 yourseankees ago when we sern the united states senate we faced i historic vote on whether theites would go war in iraq. long, involved and bitter debate and the senate finally decided to give authority to president bush to go forward with that invasion of iraq. here we stand today, 13 years later, having lost 4,484 brave americans in iraq, tens of thousands returning with the scars of war, applying for fchl

va benefits at a record level and pushing that agency to the brink in terms of providing those services. having spent several trillion dollars added to our deficit. in a situation where we invested billions of dollars so that the iraqis would be able to defend themselves, i will concede political inept tuesday when it comes by decisions made by mr. maliki were disastrous and divided the country instead of unifying it and building it for the future and now we find ourselves in a curious position. one of the four hard targets of the united states is iran. which has been a source of great concern for the united states and the threat to stability northea middle east and the world. now we find conjecture that we need to work with iran to stabilize raerk. can you tell my, first, how did

we find ourselves in this position? is this the right course to follow? what have we learned about the situation in iraq that we can apply to afghanistan in terms of theirbility to defend themselves once we're gone? >> mr. chairman, i wish i was wise enough to sort it all out and give you a clear and concise answer but let me respond this way. first, on the comparison with afghanistan. it is my judgment that the probear very little comparison for many reasons. first, afghanistan is not iraq internally, historically, ethnically, religiously, second, strong support in afghanistan today for america's continued as well as our nato i sap partners. the presence there which both presidential candidates said they would sign a lateral

security agreement. the election just took place and they'll certify the election in a couple of weeks. so that aside, i think there are many, many differences between iraq and afghanistan. but back here mofundamental question. let's take one piece -- iran. let's not forget that when we went in the united states into afghanistan, in late 2001, actually, early on, we had worked with the iranians on that western border of afghanistan. so there's some history here of sharing common interests. we have significant differences, obviously. that's what vienna is about. what's going on there, now, as well as other interests. iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. nd all the other issues. when it comes to the common

interests of a nation, whether it's the united states or any nation, that's what forges some kind of reality to what we're dealing with. certainly iraq is a good example. all the neighbors in iraq, are being, will be affected by what's going on. these are regional issues. syria is a regional issue. isil and the other terrorist groups quarterback those affiliated with al qaeda, all are threats to all nations, all governments and certainly, including us. so i don't think these issues come neatly wrapped and geopolitical graduate school papers. they are complicated. they are intertwined with history. with tribal differences and religious differences, ethnic differences. in iraq, i think the

opportunities that we presented after a rather significant and committed number of years there, or what president bush signed with then prime minister maliki in 2008, a strategic framework agreement which laid out when america's troops would be out of iraq which was signed in december of 2008. we greeted the iraqis with tremendous opportunities to govern themselves and defend themselves and we continued to support iraq and we accelerated our fmf program with iraq. we can't dictate outcomes. it's up to the iraqi people. that's a waivetop answer. it's automatic those complications fit together and we're faced with the reality dealing with the reality we've got on the ground, right now. threatening our interests. all of the nations of this area, gcc nations are threatened and

certainly, iran is threatened. >> general dempsey, i don't know that there's any end to the ambition of vladimir putin. i believe that there's one trip wire. he has shown that he's willing to invade the republic of georgia and to take over territory which i've seen. the barbed wire that separates what was once part of the republic of georgia now being controlled by the troops. he's shown he's willing to invade with people wearing -- i wouldn't call it uniforms but parkation with no insignia on them. the only trip wire to stop this man's naked ambition to restore the russian empire is nato. and the obvious question for us in the west, if and when the day comes, when putin decides to test us, are we ready? are nato allies ready to stand together?

to stop any aggression that he should exhibit towards members of our alliance? >> well, chairman, briefly, the tactic that russia is using is one i would describe as approximate coers, and i doubt there will be a full-blown invasion but we have to be alert to the other tools he might use to undermine the sta bt notably in the baltics and some of our eastern european allies. approximate coersiokacoersiookc the use of force. subversion, which you noticed by the introduction of surrogates and proxies. misinformation to get population stirred up. i think russia lit a fire in ukraine that has somewhat burned out of their control. and i think ukraine is in for a very difficult path as a result. our nato allies are awakening to the fact that for 20 years,

they've taken european security for granted and can no longer do so. >> are we ready? >> the questions about readiness would probably be best answered in a classified setting but we're not as ready as we need be. >> senator leahy? >> thank you. secretary hagel and general dempsey, i want to thank you for taking the time to be here especially with all that's going on in the world. i join with the others, compliments of secretary hail, he's been a tremendous help to this committee and to all of us here in the senate and both parties. we -- i also want to applaud our people, the justice department, the fbi, the department of defense. secretary hagel, you wavlg attorney again holder. for the capture of amed abu ck

aempblt tabba and i'm glad you're bringing them back here to be tried in our courts. we americans show we're not afraid and we don't have to send these people off to guantanamo. we can try them in our courts. my family spent ten months at guantanamo of working with the military. and i look at a place like that where we're spending millions of dollars a year, to lock people up. we could put them in a maximum security here in the u.s. and get convictions. and i'm glad that we can show the rest of the world we're not afraud as we were not when the oklahomaity bomber, a great terrorist attack. we used our courts. we use our courts. and i have great confidence in them.

i also look at the things we have -- i was glad to see you reference general dempsey. our reserves, as secretary hagel and senator graham and i introduced a bill to establish commission to provide advice to the congress. we have 46 of our colleagues as cosponsoring including senators durbin and cochran. the language the house approved defense authorization and the version reported by senator arms services committee, and i hope that that becomes the law you will work very closely to make sure that it's done. >> we'll follow the law, senator. >> i know. it would have been news if you said otherwise. general dempsey, you observed last year that 'sexual harassment, assault in the

military, everyone had taken their eye off the ball. we passed a major reforms but the problem is also, it's even more of their own. have they been effective? where are we today in this? >> our eye is on the ball. the initiatives that we've taken are beginning to positively effect the negative trend lines that i reported to last year. we've got work to do. both at our own initiative and initiatives that the secretary of defense has directed us to undertake. and i think i would simply say to you that we're optimistic that we can turn -- we have to turn this around. forget about optimism. it does erode the foundation of trust on which our military relies. we'll turn it around. and we've got our eye on the ball. >> we're telling war stories i remember as a prosecutor how difficult this could be.

and prosecuting these, depending on how much the agencies involve. in that case, civilian law enforcement agencies were willing to actually look at these issues. as you know from you're own experience in the military, there's a wide variance among military commanders at how they look at this. i would urge you to keep pushing for some consistency throughout the military. just as we have to, in our military academies, this is something that if we're going to encourage the best people to come in the military, we've got to show this is zero tolerance area. >> if i could react, senator. i assure you that it is a zero tolerance area. and also, we have a level of consistency now that if you're

not aware of it, we should make you aware of it. we raised the level at which a decision can be made to investigate or not investigate. and we've got nine different ways that a young man or woman can report incidents. we have a level of consistency that i think would satisfy your concerns. >> thank you very much. and we've had these media accounts, of course, as you know, and i'll direct this to both you and secretary hagel. years of training provided by u.s. forces, in iraq and we saw some of the iraq military just throw down their arms. when the militants advance.

>> one national police organization, they did, in fact, throw down their arms and in some case cool lewd with and yao can look back at our intelligence reports and they did that because they lost faith that the central government in iraq was dealing with the entire population and in a fair, equitable way to provide hope for all of them. you ask if that could hatppen i afghanistan. the newly elected government would saw a lot more to say about than anyone here. of the two candidates, it is our assessment that there's a likelihood that they will -- try to form and maintain a unity

government for afghanistan. but i can't completely convince either myself or you that the risk is zero that that could happen in afghanistan. >> senator, i would agree with what the chairman said on his analysis. i would go back to partly, the answer i gave to chairman durbin when he asked his question. there's no guarantee that we know of. there's no guarantee in life. it's up to the people of afghanistan to make these decisions. their military and their new leadership that will be coming in as a result of their new government. we've helped them build as well as our nato partners. milt h military institutions, training responsible with the

announcement of the president's plan, where we'll be there another two years. we face our transition and our roles. i think that's significant. i think the progress made in afghanistan is very significant. a different dynamics and different ethnic religion and dynamics. it doesn't mean they don't have differences in that country. that country has a very tortured history. i think if prospects of that turning out where they, in fact, can defend themselves 'and can govern themselves. and neck bring about a freedom of rights for all of their people. that's as good as it can get. beyond that with we can't dictate anymore.

we can only go so far in helping any country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will submit for the record, a question on the convention and relations we're trying and i would like a response on that. >> senator coats? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> based on my previous service in the senate, some service now, i'm fully awaiver that the pentagon has a contingency plan on the shelf for just about every possible scenario, from nuclear war to an invasion by canada and everything in between. my question is, given what you've seen here happen in iraq. and maybe we didn't anticipate

how stunningly quick territory could be yielded and major cities could be taken over without resistance. but nevertheless, after we failed to negotiate a sofa agreement status and forces agreement with iraq, there had to be some anticipation that some of the territory would be up for grabs. that there would be scenarios where lack of confidence in the leadership war and the capability of the iraqi military on its own would lead to something like this the was there a plan on the shelf? if so, what is it? if there wasn't, why isn't it? general dempsey, i noted and i wrote down the quote, i think you said we're in the process of developing options. that's different than than options that are thought-through and strat joo

strategized. >> let me assure you we don't have a plan on the shelf for the invasion of canada. i want to make sure our canadian allies who may be watching -- >> generally, for nations where we're not in an active conflict we describe our options in terms of what resources we can put around the situation and then develop options, present them to our elected leaders for decision. right now we have a great deal of isr assets committed to iraq. we have a great many maritime assets and aviation committed to iraq and we've placed a few contingency mostly for forced protection of the united states embassy and forces in and around baghdad. that said, we have prepared options. we've been discussing them with the inner agency.

the president of the united states will meet stayed with members of congress in a classified session and i certainly don't intend to foreshadow his conversation. but i would be happy at some point if you'd like to provide a classified briefing on that skubt. >> isn't it a little bit late? the territory has been lost. the cities cities have been taken and the u.s. weapons have been seized. the banks have been robbed. oil may be or may not be in control of the extremist groups which is a great they are basically saying, let's look at the openings. >> senator, it's only late if you suggest that we could have stopped it in some way. and i think it's worth remembering the real threat in iraq that's common to all of us is isil, this organization. which is, as you know, started off at al qaeda in iraq and went to syria. and is now back in iraq. so this all started and stops

with iraq. and there is very little that could have been done to overcome the degree to which the government of iraq had failed its people. and that's what has caused this problem. >> senator, may i add to that? >> sure. >> one piece of your question, i think, was abouts surprise that we not anticipate this to your point about planning. some of you, senator graham, senator blunt, members, senator reed, armed services committee, may recall, the director of our defense intelligence agency, general flynns's testimony before the senate armed services in february and in that testimony he said -- it is likely that specifically, i asked isil may well take territory in iraq or attempt to take territory in iraq.

now, that doesn't negate why were not you prepared and why didn't you know about it? the other part of that is, and i think it goes back to general dempsey was talking about, i think we were surprised that the iraqi decisions is specifically the ones that general dempsey talked about, threw down their weapons. we had obviously, as general dempsey said, are always working options and scenarios. but -- and we knew isil for the reasons general dempsey talked about, has been a threat in syria and elsewhere. so, again, i go back to we can only do so much. we didn't have a presence in iraq as you know for the very reason you mentioned. because the iraqis would not give us the immunity we needed,

i think all those are parts of the answer to your question. >> would you agree, mr. secretary, that the current situation in iraq is in our national economic and security interest? >> oh, i do agree. if for no other reason than oil. you mentioned energy and oil and it's a regional issue, i believe that, so the ripple effect of what's going on there everywhere -- >> given that, do you think that therefore, we should have some response other than no response? at least to this point? >> well, i don't think it's a matter of no response. >> no reponse that's making a difference in. >> well, i'm not sure of that. but i would give you the same response that general dempsey did. the president is meeting with congressional leadership this afternoon. >> you think it's too late? >> we are at a loss of territory. they already gained control of the second largest city in iraq. and other cities that we lost

blood and treasure and people lost limbs and died to save. we already lost it. it was like crimea. that's done? >> we didn't lose anything. the iraqi government -- >> for national interest we lost something. >> you could say that about a lot of things but we ought to be clear. it wasn't that the united states had lost anything. we turned a pretty significant situation over as you noted for the very reasons you noted to the iraqi people when we fazed out of our military involvement in iraq. and so, we have done everything we could to help them but it's up to the iraqis. they wanted to manage and govern their own country so i think we should assign the blame to the united states for this. i think we go back to who is responsible for this? isil? they invaded.

this current government inform wrairk has never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring a unity government together with the sunnis, kurds and the shia. we have worked hard in the confines of our ability to help them do that but we can't dictate to them. >> well, my time is up and i'll yield back. i simply want to say that there have been many situations in the history of the country that have been in our national interest, both economically and strategically. and we similarly, haven't punted out some of those simply because the country that was -- where it was taking place didn't step up. i think a lot of countries look to american leadership and i'm not advocating any specific military action but they're looking to leadership and they would like to know somebody has their back. i think it might have been easier for the soldiers to shed their uniforms and run because they didn't have anybody that the their back and i know the sofa agreement, so forth and so

on but to basically state that just because the country didn't deliver, what we wanted them to deliver, it's something that's international security interest, that we take a pass, or wait to it's too late. i don't think is the kind of answer we want to get. mr. chairman? >> i'm over my time limit. >> when we're not there, we're not there. i don't know what you would have expected the united states to do. >> i would hope you would help? >> we are. we've been talking in classified briefings in the last few days. >> i think it would be good if the president could talk to congress and the american people and let us know where we are. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with respect brief to iraq. it is the state department operation basically, because they run the embassy and -- have

we been communicating to maliki and his military, questions about their capacity and willingness and effective leadership. and have we made it clear in conjunction with general flynn's testimony that there were real threats they faced and had to make adjustments? is that something that was done? >> senator, absolutely. and let me give you one personal opinion. when the syria issue began to manifest itself, i stopped in baghdad personally, and met with the most senior leaders of their government and their military. and described what i thought was an opportunity -- and they were all, of course, worried about syria. what's going to come in from syria to affect us. and i said, that's the wrong question. the question is, how will you

take this opportunity, that is to say, a perceived threat from your country to outside. and use it as an opportunity to actually -- bring your government, your people together on the basis of that common thread? that was a year ago. in that year, the behavior was counter to what you would probably try to do if you were trying to bring your people together, change of leadership, cronyism, just all forms of sectarian i sectarianism. >> have you or others communicated consistently the operational consequences of these political decisions that they are in danger of -- they're endangering their own security? >> frequently. >> and the response by both the civilian and military

authorities has been indifference? >> i would describe the response as a volume of conspiracy theorys. >> turning to the present mom t moment, maliki, many of us have had occasion to meet with him numerous times. at least in one moment of the history, he surprised a lot of us by taking very aggressive action in 2008 when he was able to go after elements that everyone thought were untouchable. in fact, he was ahead of our own commanders in terms of taking the offensive. at this moment, is it your impression that he understands that this is an essential moment for him and his country and that he is willing effectively to stop doing things that will stop the employee men item and reverse the tide? >> senator, i don't know. our ambassador, ambassador

bekroff is in the country working diligently to try to understand how exactly maliki ispy thinking about this situation. but that question would be better passed to the state department. >> final question. just the leverage that we had, given the fact that we were trying to communicate serious concerns about their military capabilities, not so much because of the training of individual soldiers or the equipment they had, it was just the level of leadership, and political direction of the military forces. do we think we've done enough in that regard? hit the right buttons? >> well, i mean, clearly we will look back on this, and do what we always do in the interspeculation. use the results to change the way we build partners. i should mention by the way,

that although the two divisions in the north collapsed as well as the police unit, there are multiconfessional units of the iraqi armed forces standing and defending in and around baghdad. multiconfessi multiconfessional. this has not broken down entirely on sectarian lines but it could. >> let me just quickly, because i have to change subjects. that's to the persistent threat of cyber, at the level of national war games, for want of a better term. are you comfortable that you are doing enough of the planning and gaming and assuming all of the new technologies coming on line as -- in response to questions about crimea. one of the things that the russians did was kevly employ

intelligence operations. are you actually engaging in war colleges, senior military institutions in this sort of dot level sort of what's coming, what's the worst case? >> senator, first question, it is one of the areas where we have increased cyber. to get our capability up quickly, move it to around 6,000 employees, we have put a high, high priority on this for the last two days, two years for the obvious reasons am i confident i'm doing enough? i'm confident that we're doing everything we need to be doing, but we're constantly reassessing that, senator. i don't think anyone could ever be too confident, because there

are surprises all the time, but we recognize what's out there, we recognize the technology that is moving so rapidly. the threats that are clear to this country, to the world. we are working interagency with all the assets. you had a question about war colleagues, whether outside units, interests, enterprises, to get their best advice, absolutely. we don't think we're alone for all of this, this is as high a priority overall as we have. >> just one comment, we want to thank secretary hill for your service. this is your last appearance. and also thinking of our initial discussion with respect to iraq, we were in a curious situation,

we were trying to warn them and they weren't listening. the only leverage we would have had would be to pull support back, which might have made the situation worse. so this is again something that we realized many years ago, there's no good answer there. but it's a very. i tell you gentlemen, it's a disturbing situation at the moment. thank you. >> senator graham. >> thank you. make sure in your last appearance you get to speak. as you depart, would you advise the congress on personnel issues. >> we need to deal with -- >> it's about 50% of our costs.

>> right. >> and we're talking about in the future, retirement reforms, looking at cost sharing. >> yes, all of those are elements on the retirement side. we have a good proposal that will -- most of the savings, don't come out of the pockets of the troops. >> and to my colleagues, i hope we will listen to what mr. hill says and try to stabilize the budget. now, to iraq, is it possible general dempsey to stop isis without u.s. air personnel? >> isis are -- >> the people that al qaeda broke out. >> or broke contact because they're more radical? >> yes, these people. >> i suspect -- well, first of

all, we have a request from the iraqi government for air com. >> we do? do you think it's in our national security interest to honor that request? >> it is in our national security interest to counter isil wherever we counter them. >> fair statement. i want the american people to understand. there's a lot at stake for us, right, secretary hagel? >> there's a lot at stake for us, the region, consequences. >> if iraq falls and iran dominates the south, and this group owns the sunni territory all the way from aleppo to baghdad, occurred stkurdistan b that would affect us here at home, is that a fair outcome? >> i don't know what the outcome would be if that occurred. all i can tell you is what we're looking at -- >> well, the economy of iraq would collapse? >> well, i think that's right, if they lose their oil.