is the size of the rebate offered by an exchange a factor in determining where you route nonmarketable customer orders? >> the way our committees and people responsible for order routing approach this, he start with the best execution and they go through a list of variables that we could consider as hurdles. in order to get to a point where the revenue sharing is even considered, those hurdles have to be cleared. >> the revenue sharing that you're talking about is the rebate? >> correct, sir. >> so my question is, when you get to that point. >> yes. >> after you say you've lured at the other factors, and then you look at the rebate issue, my question is, is the size of the rebate offered by an exchange a factor in determining where you route those nonmarketable customer orders? >> yes, it would be the last factor. all things being equal, that

would be a factor. >> so the greater the rebate, that would be where you would. how many times trades does ameritrade route? >> we route about 37% of our flow would go to an exchange on a daily basis, so i'm assuming that -- i'll call it 40% of let's call it 400,000 trades a d day. >> about 150,000 trades a day? >> 150,000 trades a day times, you know -- you want a quarter, right? so that's going to be about -- let's see -- >> well, let's round it off, say half a million a week? >> yeah. >> so make in a month that would be about 2 million.

>> a quarter about 8 million. >> that sounds good. >> round it off. >> we did about 90 million trades last year. >> then why wo it be only 8 million -- that's no exchanges. >> and you asked per quarter. >> that's about 8 million, two exchanges in a typical quarter. we looked at the form 606 quarterly order routing disclosures for the quarter that was covered in the vitalio paper. -- i'm going to have to go vote. we're going to have to recess here for about 15 minutes to give you all a chance to do something else that you might need to do. what time is it now? is it exactly 12:00? >> we'll reconvene at 12:15. thank you all.

. we thank our witnesses for their patience and understanding in the senate. let me pick up where we left off, mr. quirk. i guess we were talking about how many trades aamerica trade routes to exchanges in a typical quarter, i think we rounded it out to about 8 million. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now we looked at your form 606 quarterly order routing

disclosures for the quarter covered in the batallio paper. according to those disclosures, to the quarter covered in that paper, the fourth quarter of 2012, td ameritrade directed all nonmarketable customer orders to wen have youu in that quarter, direct edge. is that correct? >> that is correct. now, among all the exchanges, direct edge paid the highest rebate during the fourth quarter of 2012, which is again the period covered by the paper. you say it was your policy directed first and foremost on the basis of best execution, but and we've learned today, best execution is a subjective judgment, so your subjective judgment is which market provided best execution for tens of millions of customer orders per year, about 8 million in a

quarter, allowed you to route all of the orders to the market that paid you the most now, i find that to be frankly a pretty incredible coincidence. now you directed all of your orders at that time to that direct edge, because what you said is that exchange offered your company the best execution. the disclosure didn't show a single order being directed to the new york stock exchange, for instance, so mr. farley was the new york stock exchange just consistently worse than direct edge in getting best execution on retail orders? >> no.

a mr. quirk, how much did td ameritrade receive in rebates for routing orders to venues that pay maker rebates. do you know how much you made? just from payment order flow? >> i can estimate is it based on what we've discussed. it will be about 80 million. >> about 80? >> um-hmm. is that just the part that goes to the venues -- >> maker/taker. >> how much did they pay to exchanges for -- to charge taker fees? >> i don't know the answer to that quell, but i did get it. it would not be significant, but i don't know the answer.

>> will you get the answer for the record? >> yes. so, anyway, for virtually every rather than a venue that td ameritrade would have had to pay a fee. is that true? >> i would say in the subsequent 24 months, you'll note in our 606s that we have routed to a number of exchanges in one quarter some of those exchanges would not be the highest -- >> let me go into that. >> in the first -- in your 606 disclosures, for the first quarter of 2014, td ameritrade routed all disclosed nonmarketable orders to either direct edge or lava flow.

the exchanges that appear from our review of your disclosures to have offered the highest rebates available in the market is that true? >> that would be true. so again your subjective judgments is to which market provided best execution for tens of millions of customer orders virtually always led you to route orders to the markets that paid you the most? >> no, it wouldn't have always led us -- >> i want virtually always. >> virtually, yeah. >> senator mccain? >> president to thank the witnesses for coming. what effect would banning maker/taker payments have on your stock exchanges? mr. rattimer? >> thank you, senator mccain. the effect would have us as in a

commercial operation change us the way we access or market, as i mentioned earlier today, we take on the order of two cents for every 100 shares traded as revenue for conducting the services of an exchange. and so if you take away the maker/taker rebate, we'll simply recon figure the pricing mechanism we have, so we can continue to operate our business. it's not fundamental to the way we do business, and so related to your question, that we would simply adjust or pricing to whatever framework that the law allowed. >> we would have fewer order types, which would reduce complexity in the market. we would likely have fewer venues, senator, as well and we wouldn't need all throws of those however, doi want to point

out if we ban mark/taker in isolation, it's also problem that more business would move away, therefore we would need to couple it with what is called a trade app. provision, which would establish the primacy of public quotes about whether you do business fairly or unfairly, if there's favoritism, if at least even, as was charged in michael lewis books that is there's real corruption. i think you would agree that there's a problem out there.

do you believe there's a public perception problem? and if there is, what measures ought to be taken. ifs through there's no pr problem, just say i don't think there's a problem, but if you think there's a problem, what do you think we ought to do? >> markets are built on confidence and perception, as you point out, and i think the perception could be a lot better we're talking about trading businesses. the most important part is our listing business, where entrepreneurs come to market to raise capital to help create jobs. so we79 to do whatever we can to improve the perception. we've proffered several

suggestions. we actually think doing away with maker/taker, couples it with a tradeout rule, it would improve if perception, rue deesing venues, messages, and when you bring that sort of the simp accomplicity to the markets, it becomes more tangible. >> i think we all would agree transparency would. would location elimination of that also be a positive effect or no effect? >> eliminating co-location would be in another direction, i think that would be a perception problem, but bringing more transparency i think is a great idea to whatever extent we can. >> in my mind there's no question that these questions about market structure have entered into the mainstream and that people are wondering how the markets work. i think that to address that

maybe a few things i think we're see market forces to some extent start to do that. i blefz there are three dark pool operators that have released their form ets as an example. prior to that those were not forms made available, so i think there's a trend in the direction of transparency. in our testimony we have talked about areas of rule 606 and 605 and other areas of operation of dark pools, where transparency i think would yield a lot of insights and potential additional confidence in the markets. that's the immediate response. the medium term response i believe is to let the s.e.c. do the holistic review that chairman white has articulated to the industry you know this

would be fully comprehensive. cover you put everything on the table and some things will undeloittedly change, find ways to optimize and improve what are all right pretty about attributes for today's market but there will be a recent mark where the regulator would say we've looked at this, got the data, we've concluded it's a good tentative structure and we'll leave it in place. so i think nothing will be left out and i think that process will be very healthy. >> >> mr. brennan. >> thanks, senator mccain. as to whether the markets dr there's a perception problem or not and a confidence issue, the only thing i can judge that on is generalitily our business and our customers, our clients. at vanguard we have seen record interest over the last few years in our products, the majority of

the flows we have seen have been into our ecity market products, vanguard at 138 billion of client assets come in the door last week, and 76 billion in the first five months of this year. again, the vast majority of those sums have been going into the equity products. >> well, mr. brennan, i think it's like the old story of a guy some of the small town that said to the other guy, what are you going to do on saturday night? he says i'm going to the poker game. he says why? because you know the game's crooked and the guy says, it's the only game in town. so mr. brennan, i don't accept your allegations that everything is final, but if that's your view, i respect it, but i don't agree with it. when i discuss the view, i'm going to discuss the view of our 6 mill yorch clients and just

tell you, in the favorite of the exhibits they have exhibited, it would be is -- we've seen trading accounts increase 31%, and we have a proprietary index, which we created a couple years ago, which indicates how much exposure people are taken in the market. in other words, are they participating in the rally that's happened over the course of the last couple years? and a significant portion have. that being said, i would agree with you that there is a perception problem in a segment of these clients. those would be the clients that are probably closest to this, most of mom and pop really these terms don't mean anything to them. the problem is make sure that we don't spook them. we don't want them to think they're being treated unfairly. >> thank you.

i thank the witnesses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain mr. brennan, earlier this year, you said some high frequency traders play a role in knitting back together a fragmented market structure, but that other high-frequency trader may be unfairly taxing the system through their behaviors, close quote. when you mentioned that some high-frequently traders unfairly tax the system, were you talking about firms that engage in practices like rebate saudi arabia triage, where they try-- arbitra arbitrage? >> so there are folks there that -- and and therefore the maker/taker system contributes

to that problem? >> i think the market structure as a whole has improved dramatically over the past 20 years but i'm talking about the part ha hasn't improved. some high-frequently traders unfairly tax the system and you agree that you were referring to those firms that engage in rebate arbitrage, and i just asked you whether or not the maker/taker system is obviously by definition contributing to that problem. >> i think the maker/taker in combination with the lack of a trade, in combination with differential data speeds contribute to potential issues. >> can you have rebate arbitrage without rebates? >> no. >> so, therefore, rebates contribute to the problem? i didn't say it's the whole problem. i say does it contribute to the

problem? >> yes. >> mr. quirk, i think you were critical of the vitalio testimony, and i wonder if you would be -- so that he could analyze it? >> yes, we were actually asked by professor batallio after hi paper was published, if we would be willing to share data. >> i think we would be. of course with security -- we would have to ensure that wasn't going anywhere. >> when you were asked, what was your answer? >> to be honest, i'm not entirely sure. i believe that he was told it's being considered, but i'm not certain.

>> let me conclude very, very briefly saying the following. number one, we've had a good hearing, i think a very constructive here, very lume nating hears, and we've had heard a consistent message, and

that is that there's a lack of confidence 2349 markets. the conflicts of interest we have discussed contribute to that lack of confidence, both the actual conflicts as well as the appearance of conflicts contribute to that lack of confidence, and they may lead also to regular investors, average investors being worse off. that's what professor batallio told us today what his study shows. both of these problems, all of these problems should be and can be addressed. one of the ways we have got to do it is remove the conflicts of interest. the subcommittee has looked at other conflicts, some of which have been very dramatic in earlier hearings, and we've had to rid or market of the conflict of interest to the extent it's humanly possible, if we're going to restore conflicts in our markets, and it's very important that we do have confidence in

our markets. so hopefully the regulatory agencies that are going to take action, as several mentioned, they're going to look at structural issues, and hopefully they won't take as long as they tail on a lot of other things that just fester at the regulatory agencies for years. these things sometimes happen, hopefully more often than not through the operations of the free market, but some of them just don't happen without government saying you've got to change your ways, folks, and you've got to take steps a and b if you're going to restore confidence. we may disagree, perhaps as to what those steps are, but there are steps which must be taken, either by regulators or by

congress, to deal with conflicts, and to deal with the other kinds of problems which exist in the current market, because it's clear there can be improvements. very very much appreciate your tome and apologize for the disruptions. i wish we could pass a law as to end interruptions or have some regulatory agency figure out a way to avoid thinks sbruxs, but that's not yesterday in the cards. thank you all, we stand adjourned.

i.r.s. commissioner john koskin testifying about missing agency e-mails in connection to the i.r.s.'s targeting of conservative groups applying for tax empty at that time tuesday. here's a look of an exchange between the commiter and the chairman dave kemp. >> why did the i.r.s. inform selfexecutives, but kept it secret from the congress who was conducting an investigation? >> we are norm keeping it a secret. it was our public report to you that has provided this information. there's been no attempt to keep it a secret. my position has been that when

we provide information we were proeshd it complete lid. if we provide incomplete information sometimes peopler tempted to leap to the wrong conclusion >> it's okay for the white house and treasury to leap to a conclusion six weeks before the congress, but my question also is, have there been discussions within the irs about when to reveal this to congress? >> certainly. >> obviously these discussions included treasury? >> no. >> well, then how did treasury find out about it? >> treasury in a conversation i'm not aware of apparently -- >> i'll have a lot of questions to write with you to have follow-up. >> that's not -- >> this is completely unacceptable. >> can i answer that question? >> i don't think you're giving me an answer and i want to move to another topic. >> all right. your letter describes the lowest as being unrecoverable. >> correct. >> but fails to mention where the damaged hard drive is. do you know where it is that crashed in 2011?

>> i'm advised the actual hard drive after it was determined it was dysfunctional and that no e-mails could be retrieved, was recycled and destroyed in the normal process. >> was it fully destroyed? >> that's my understanding. >> was it melted down? do you know? >> i have no idea what the recycler does with it. this was three years ago. >> does the i.r.s. have a system for tracking items? >> tracking what? >> does the i.r.s. have a -- >> we track items. we don't track every -- i'm sure we track some. >> does someone there have a serial number for that hard drive? >> i don't know whether they do or not. i'm just advised in a normal case when the mar drive fails, the e-mail cannot be reconstructed,ed hard drive is turned over to recyclers. >> it seemed if it was recycled, the government property would have been tracked. >> pardon it? >> it seems to me if it was recycled government property could be tracked or people could

simply walk away with property. i assume there's a tracking system. >> there's tracking system for computers. my understanding is lois lerner's computer continued to functi function. >> can we get the seer atnumber of this hard drive? >> if they have serial numbers. they are welcome to them. >> because i have the hard drive and the hard drive of every computer that drashd during that time frame. what i've learned in this week, and the only way i think i can hope to restore confidence is to establish a special prosecutor with the authorities, power and resources needed. so to restore the trust, will you support the appointment of a special prosecutor? >> there are six investigations going on of this event? >> yes or no. >> the ig is already

investigating this. >> can you give a definitive answer to this committee, yes or no? >>. >> do -- >> i'm controlling the time. the question can have a simp yes or no answer. >> i think -- i think. >> regular order. >> i think the appointment of a special prosecutor after the vehicles investigations that are ongoing and the ig investigation would be a monumental waste of taxpayers funds. >> is that a yes or no? >> that's a no. >> thank you. watch the entire hearing tonight, 8:00 eastern over on on our companion network, c-span. this week yes, sir on "news makers" our guest is debbie wasserman schultz. the florida congresswoman talks to you about the 2014 midterm elections and reacts to this week's house republican leadership reactions. airing sunday 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern.

this weekend live from the gettysburg college civil war institute, saturday morning starting at -- you'll here peter carmichael on robert e. lee, followed by brook simpson on ulysses s. grant. later megan kate-nelson on the burning of chambersburg, this weekend on c-span3. on "american history tv. requests. governor rick perry was invited to speak with reporters. governor perry talked about his tenure at governor, border security and immigration issues and potential for a 2016 presidential run. it's 50 minutes. >> it is a distinct order. i will call the judgment on whether it's a pleasure until we

finish this up. in all seriousness, it is a pleasure to sit around a table with so many of you that influence what goes on in the wor world, and we all live in interesting times. whether you're the governor the state of the size of texas, with all interests things going on, or whether you're observing the world and influencing it through the medium that you do, thank you for that. all too obvious we lose sight that we're blessed to live in a country that allows us to do these things. one of the things i learned as a young boy, i really didn't respect the process, the country, the freedoms we have until i went around the world back in the early and mid 1970s,

and had seen how people were treated and somewhat downtrodden in certain places, making the relationship between the types of government they had in those countries, and how the people were impacted. it's really -- it's really had an impact on me and one of the reasons i got into this public service business, to make a difference. i had no ideafuls going to end up doing what i've done, but with that said, let me share with you what i've been doing for the last 18 to 24 months, because i think that's the most timely period, and going forward, and i don't think there's a more important role for a chief executive, whether it's a governor a head of boeing

or whether it's president of the united states than helping create a climate that people that know they can risk that capital, have a return on investment and create jobs, which in turn create the wealth of your entity. and so that's been my major focus as the governor i from time to time get distracted, but i always try to return to that is the single most important thing that i do in my position, is to help create that environment generally by regulatory, tax policy, legal policy, educational policies, which in turns make for a skilled workforce, accountable public schools, those are the four pillars, if you will of what's happened in texas, and i

think it worked -- would work any other place, even california and new york, as i say from time to time. but that's the most important thing that we just -- and here's the reason i say that. you cannot have better health care delivery. you can't have better transportation infrastructure. you can't have better or more effective schools if you don't first have the resources -- i don't think you can have thoughtful impactful foreign policy unless you have the economics back home to be able to drive that. so this -- from my perspective, it goes across the board, whatever as the chief executive, wherever you may find yourself, if you don't help create that climate of economic viability and strength, then you are not going to be as influential -- i don't think your people will be

as happy, and that kind of goes to my whole tenth amendment position, and where i -- just -- blue state/red state conversation that i've been engaged in over of course of the last 18 months in particular, to go to a thoughtful and civil, even in a winsome way. i know governor brown and governor cuomo sometimes think i'm being critical of them, but i hope we're doing it in a civil, thoughtful, even with a small on our face. governor brown does from time to time tit for tat, and i appreciate that. as i do my rep governor friends. i'm more than happy to host governor scott last sunday in san antonio, as he watched the spurs -- anyway, we have fun

with each other. >> and then i'm a real results-oriented person. i'm rare in the sense i've been around long enough in the role as governor to actually see the results of the policies that we've put into place. for instance, in 2003, we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation. there was a lot of critics that said, you know, this is for this reason you're doing it, or this reason you're doing it. in fact we were doing it for the purposes of access to health care. we had 19 counties lining the rio grande, if you were a pregnant female, you had to go outside that county for prenatal care. today that's not the case. we have 30,000 more figuresephy than we had in 2003. that's a real result of the tort reform. >> this is when i play my obnoxious host role.

could you do another minute, and then we'll have the questions? >> perfect. 30% of all the private sector new jobs created in america during the period of time i was governor was in the state of texas. think about that. 1 out of 12 people in the country live in texas, but 3 out of 8 were the new jobs in the country. 5% of those jobs above minimum wage. the federal reserve chairman, richard fisher who plays for a different team, politically anyway, he's a democrat. he bakley said if you took out the medium-wage jobs that have been created since 2000 in texas, america would be under water on middle-wage jobs. there's been an experiment going on in this country for 12 years relative to these policies, and i will suggest to you our people were well served by those, by

the jobs that were created, listen, we are an incredibly diverse country, i understand that. i find that out on a regular basis how diverse, and we need to be very tolerant of that diversity as we go forward, as we look at all of the policies that we deal with. i know all people don't want to be texans, and people need to be freed to go where they are most comfortable, economically, socially and otherwise. so -- i don't think it's a very good policy, and it's one that i hope we can have a thoughtful, civil winsome conversation about over the next months and years as we go forward. thank you all for letting me come, and i'll attempt to answer your questions. >> thank you for coming.

we'll do one around the take at least once, baz there's a lot of folks. after mu lawrence fox, kitchen di's, tom degray rebecca el yos, miles benson, maria, carl, michael warren and mark shields, and so my only question is -- how is today's rick perry more prior pared to be a successful presidential candidate, and if elected, a better president than you were in 2012? >> i learned some very i'm glad i ran in 2012 as frustrating painful and humbling an experience -- it was painful. it was very humbling, and being prepared both physically and mentally is very important.

a classic example of a guy who thought -- i broke my arm when i was 17, i thought sure shy i could heal up in six weeks and go back to the game. not necessarily the case. and the bigger lesson for me was in preparation having run for the governorship of texas, does not prepares you to run for the president of the united states or be president over the last 18 months, i've -- please don't take that as an indication that i've made a decision, but if i do next year make that decision

i will be be prepared, to understanding the policy. there's a host of areas in which i was ill-prepared to stand up in front of the people and the state of texas and say, choose me as your next leader. >> lauren. >> i wanted to ask you how ted cruz has changed texas politics, specifically there's been the state legislature is going to be considerableably more conservative in 2015, and many folks have been saying. so i'm curious where there's any concern that his victory in 2012 moved texas almost too far to the right? >> it's not you, it's us. >> texas is pretty big. the legislature is a microcosm

of the state, so i'm not sure one person has the ability to change all of that. there -- we all get our 15 seconds of fame, right? whether it was ann richards, or whether it was george w. bush, or whether it was rick perry, or whether it was ted cruz. long term, i think it requires somebody's substantial staying power to make a long-term difference in texas. now, i loved ann richards. she is one of the funniest and profound individuals i had the opportunity to serve with. so -- but ann really didn't change texas. so the idea that a personality in the political arena can change texas may be a little bit outside of the realm of reality.

so ask me in eight years if senator cruz has made an impact on the state. at this particular point of time, it's a bit early to say that a senator would have substantively changed -- i don't know if you used that word or not, i will -- substantively changed the state. >> kevin? >> thank you. governor, yesterday you announced a surge operation on the southern border. first of all, are you planning on billing the feds to this cause? second of all, who the state police capture on the -- are they turning them over to the feds? if they are, aren't the feds just going to release them? >> i obviously believe the federal government's response --

and when i talk about response, both in actions and in costing out, belongs to them, the security of our border. i have been haranging, bringing to the attention of, flagging issuing on that border for multiple years. i've stopped on the tarmac to welcome the president and gave him a her about the issue. we drew to his attention and tried to focus he and his administration, particularly homeland security on this issues of unaccompanied aliens churn coming in on the backs of these trains in 2012. i am deeply frustrated and disappointed in the administration's response.

with that said, yes, i would like for the federal government to pay for what is a clear constitutional responsibility of the federal government, which is to secure the border. we know how to do that. that is the reason -- well, let me back up. over the last six years, we have extended upwards of half a billion dollars, 450-plus million dollars on border security efforts that the state of texas has outlaid to local law enforcement our national guard, our law enforcement, to surge into sectors -- and when we surge into the sectors, it's worked and worked well. we've seen the amount of illegal activity plummet into those areas. now, that's a 1200-mile border. it is a very vast and inhospitable area that is substantially, if not almost all private property.

so the idea that we've had this ability to security the entire boarder is -- i hope you can get your arms around that, is very, very broad, hard to do yesterday i received signatures to appropriate 1.3 million a week to surge as broadly as we can across the border. hopefully the american people through their congressional and senatorial representatives will impress upon the federal government of the importance of them doing their job of securing the border, because it is the single-most important thing that they must do. you can't have a conversation about immigration policy -- frankly i think immigration reform is down the list of things you have to do.

american people do not trust the federal government until they secure the border. you security the border with boots on the ground, with strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas, with technology that we know is -- will work, whether it's land-based types of technology, aviation-based. you can secure the border. the second thing i would do, if you're serious about getting the american people comfortable that immigration reform needs to occur and can occur, then you have to stub stantively reform the ins. if you do not -- if you don't fix the i.n.s., don't reform of i.n.s., you can't have immigration reform, in my opinion. this is like saying that we're going to put substantive more money into the veterans administration and leave that broken system in place.

you have an agency in the i.n.s. that's broken. when it takes nine years for someone to receive their citizenship, that's just not right. there's something broken. anyway, back to your secondary question, of how the federal government -- my concern is that this goch is not committed to securing the border. there are some powerful messages that we have seen from them, three to four years ago there was the catch-and-release, as we referred to it, program. people who were apprehended on the u.s. side of the border, and then literally driven inland for, in some cases 150 to 200 miles, released with a summons to go to the courthouse. now, after that was publicly brought to the attention of the american public, that was

stopped, but we're still seeing people brought in, moved to various and other places, and in too many cases not returned to their -- not returned to their country of origin. so this unaccompaniy eied alien children issue, though, has the potential to be an absolute catastrophe, a humanitarian catastrophe. and as we -- as we deal with the complexities of this, of how are we going to actually house and take care of these young people, and then what is the administration's role going to be? and how are they going to -- i they going to send these young people back to their homes of record? and i suggest they are going to have to.

and that they should. but a question that is out on the table that i think needs to be asked is diplomatically why are the governments of honduras, el salvador, guatemala and mexico allowing this to happen? you think about this for a moment. you're terrorists young people, in a lot of cases openly on trains from the southern border of mexico to the southern border of the united states across the rio grande from texas, and that government doesn't know about it? i mean, mexico is very strict about illegal immigration. think the marine in tee waijuan.

how are we seeing literally thousands broadband transported? i don't know the answer to that, but i consider it to be a failure of diplomacy by the united states in with those countries, asking those questions and -- because we have known this has been going on since 2012. this was brought to my attention by our homeland security folks who work at our fusion center. our department of public safety. i've known about this for two years. the president has known about this. the homeland security agency has known about this. why -- i can't answer the question about why we're seeing this. i don't know that. but it begs a huge number of questions. the least of which ask not -- is this a coordinated effort by some entity, somewhere, that have fudnneled these young peope

on to the trains. i don't know the answers but questions that diplomatically we need to be asking. at the same time, we deal with this -- let me wrap up with this one thing. my concern is a government of a state that from time to time, gets impacted by major natural disasters. katrina. and then on the heels of katrina, rita. that pushed people westward and then northward. hundreds of thousands of people. we're just going into hurricane season. were we to have a major event. i literally do not have places to have our citizens because of this influx from mexico. i am greatly concerned about the huge catastrophe that could occur with those two events happening simultaneously.

-- >> called that a painful experience so they know that -- what your next steps are. but can you tell us what it appeals to you about china again? >> i'm a patriot. i do care about where this country is headed. i'm a competitor. i believe that states competing against each other makes our -- the fabric of our country stronger. so -- and regardless of whether i decide to run for the presidency here or not i hope to stay edge caged in that arena. talking about the 10th amendment. challenging the government to allow the states to be more engaged in making those decisions and being a, you no, a person of influence in some form of fashion. it may not take the role as a candidate. it may take the role as a -- i'm

not only is my eyesight beginning to fail but i'm getting to be a bit of a elder statesman so maybe that's the role. yolk. but i don't -- i'm not going to ride off into the sunset. i care about this country. i care about these issues that confound us and challenge us and hopefully, this 30 years of public service that i've been engaged in and i can be of assistance and service in some form or fashion. >> i read in "the new york times" that you love california. vacation there every year in san diego. and might move to california when you're done running texas. so it's appropriate that the next question comes in the "los angeles times", david louder. >> i want to follow-up on that. at the risk of eating up all of our time, i'll go back. the vice president ask supposed

to be going down to central america to meet with the leaders of those crews that you mention. what do you think he ought to tell them and what should we be looking for from those governments? >> maybe not tell them. maybe ask them what is it that we have missed over the course of the last six years in his case. that has caused there not to be a trusting relationship between those governments and ours. i will suggest to you and i'm not saying this is just a recent administration's problem. but i don't think that the focus out of the current administration has been on this hemisphere. and i think there's -- you know, we're paying a price for that

and lack of trust. and i'm glad he's going. but i hope he's not going to go tell them what to do. i hope he's going to say, hey listen, we need to work on these challenges together. what is it that can do. i mean, the north american region has the potential to be one of the most powerful economic engines in the world. with canada, the united states and mexico in particular. and if those countries have economic prosperity and generally speaking, this is energy policy. and again, this administration's going to have a hard time going to our north american partners and saying -- we want to help you. because the excel pipeline is still sitting there languishing. and the canadians who are our number one trading partners are looking to washington, d.c. and not being trustful at all.

i think mexico and the mexican issue goes back to a little longer than this administration. let's say all the way back to the 1840's. i don't think mexico has felt particularly trusting in the united states. and i will suggest to you that the central american countries as well. we should have been and again, i'm looking backwards and i know it is what it is, but we are should have been working to develop closer relationships and when you know that there are problems, and this unaccompanied alien children issue is not a new issue. they've known about this. until it becomes unmanageable, and i don't want to just jump to across the entire foreign policy front, but it seems that this is how this administration they

function. they don't address something until it becomes an absolute can at&t fee and then they address it and bounce to the next one. so we are -- we have lost our way from my perspective when it comes to our row as being a country that has created good faith and trust around the globe with our people who historically have been our allies. when you look at canada and mexico and those central american countries by and large, they should be our allies. >> todd? >> to try to develop this a little bit. hurricane katrina and the possibility of catastrophic weather events and energy policy. job creation in texas which has a lot to do with texas'

blessings in oil and gas. i'm wondering what your views are on climate can change and what the role is of human activity in that and how particularly, given your love of the tenth amendment, i problem like that with doesn't really lend itself to a state by state solution, doesn't it require a national policy to try to address climate change? >> let me try to clarify one thing that you've said, that you've intimated that i want to make sure that you and i may not necessarily agree completely upon. i don't know what you're intimating but you intimated that texas is economically strong because of our energy industry. now, the energy industry in texas is very vibrant. but in 1984, our energy industry

made up approximately 11% of the gross state product. today it makes up about 11% of the gross state product. so the point is, this is a state that over that 30-year period of time, and i will suggest to you, starting in the mid '90s quarterback making some substantive diversifications, when you think about the price of is now three times what it was in 1984, there are huge amounts of natural gas that have been found that are -- that we didn't realize we had. yet it's still the same percent of the gross state product as it was in 1984. it is a pretty strong indicator that this is a highly diversified economy. and that the substantial amount of those jobs and that 37% of

those jobs that were created over the course of the last 13 plus years, came in other areas of the economy, not in oil and gas and mining. i always like to remind people -- we're blessed to have the oil and gas industry. california and new york both have substantial natural resources. they have chosen not to develop them. that's their choice. on to the later issue at hand, i do think that states have the ability to make very positive and impactful environmental issues outside of washington, d.c. and actually, can be even more influential in that, allowing them to come up with innovative ways to incentivize their companies to address the issues of the environment and let me give you some statistics that

are factual over the course of the last 13 years, the air in texas is leaner, substantially cleaner. of noxious chemicals, pollutants, emissions, like nig nitrous oxide. down 62% since 2000. ozone -- down by 23% during that period of time. we put programs into place that took dirty, burning, old, diesel engines out of the fleets and we gave incentives. all of that has helped to created a substantially cleaner environment in the state of texas. versus this last week announcement by the president of the united states, that we are going to move away from coal.

and it will cause huge economic impact on this country. when you have 40% or there abouts of the electricity that's developing in the united states, with coal, and to say that we're going to take that out of the mix, based on what i will consider to be science that is not settled yet. on the issue of co2. and calling co2 a pollutant is going a disservice to the country. i think it's doing a disservice to the world. if the president is truly committed to, all of the above energy policy like he said he was. we would be opening up the excel pipeline and we would be opening up federal lands to expiration of whether it's rair earth minerals or our oil and gas. and i happen to think that there

is a role for the federal government to play but it is not in setting policies that are going to kill jobs in this country. and clearly, that is that is his intention. i'm substantially short term, i'm substantially more concerned about iran changing the temperature of new york than i am some 50 years down the road that could be played by the environmental choices that are being made in the united states. >> that's a sobering thought, tom some. >> in you decide to run for president you'll be 66 years old. and all of a sudden, their saying we want younger people, fresher faces. we don't want anybody who had anything to do with the last election. >> 66 is the new 46.

>> from a practical standpoint -- how do you -- amen -- how do you deal with that -- what seems to be an emerging dynamic in the republican party? >> and i would suggest to you it's not an issue. age is substantially less important than ideas and experience. i think the republican party in particular, having watched this young, inexperienced president, bumpable from scandal to foreign policy debachle after debacle, is substantially more concerning to them than an individual's age. >> you think this w0u8d pass muster with this new faction tea party or whatever you want to call them? >> i think americans are less interested in titles and badges

than ideas. the republican party must become the party of big ideas again. they've got to stop being distracted from all of the side issues that, may be relevant to some particular sector. or section of the electricity r electorate or the country but stay focused on what i started out my remarks with. the most important thing for america. if we're going to have cogent, influential foreign policy we must first have domestic policy economically. that makes this country strong again economically. >> rebecca? >> i was wondering if you have any -- any preferences for who comes out on top? >> i don't. >> that was fast, miles.

>> governor, unkind things about the administration a short time ago about this president being unwilling to do anything until catastrophe arrives. you're not worried about climate change and global warming? it might be 50 years down the road, you say. because it's not a settled issue and i wanted to ask you what it will take to settle it and how fast -- >> i'm not a scientist. but i think the idea that we are willing to jeopardize the future of this country economically an let me share with you why i believe that strongly. we're very close to being on the virge of making some decisions in this country that can put a lot of americans to work. give a lot of americans hope. bring people out of places that

they don't want to be from the standpoint of economics to a really bright future. and the energy industry is the quickest way from my perspective to do that. opening up the excel pipe line. excel is pipe line and it's their call. but there's a point in time when people look around and they see cross the border of pennsylvania, people getting to live very vibrant and hopeful lifestyles and you cross -- the story of the two t achlt oga nrk and tioga, pennsylvania. at some point in time people say, we're no longer going to allow you to hold us hostage economically by some smallously very of activist in albany. and must allow us to search for our and explore and develop these resources that we have. so economically, this country can turn around very quickly, the jobs that would be created by the excel pipe line.

the massive impact economically that the energy industry which does two things. number one, it puts people to work. it also drives down the cost of power. and then manufacturing comes back to america. we're starting to see a real interest in company's coming company. we've been in conversations for the last 12 mos with some entities that want to create big manufacturing zones. working with wholesalers that will give long term contracts to these manufacturers who come from on shore back to america to develop whatever their which get is that they're in building. if you put this in place it will stop it in its tracks. i don't believe that we have the settled science by any sense of

the imagination, to stop that type of economic opportunity ta for the country. here's the other by product. i'm a result guy. i put the policies in place. here's one of the results of maerk being economically vibrant. innovation has always been -- we've been the place where innovation occurs. when you look across the technology spectrum in recent history in particular, the great innovation that's occurred in the world has happened in maerk. if you strangle the economic issue engine that keeps that from having, how are we going to come up with the new ways? the new technologies that allow for these issues of global warming to be impacted. we historically come up with that technology and we sold it to the world. we strangle our economy with these policies.

there are 28 coal-powered plants on the books in germany alone. why would we put ourselves in the position. >> reporter: -- regardless of what the president says, that is not settled giants and i think it's a good one. >> i think you continue to allow the debate to go on. this president basically says we're not having this conversation. it's settled and if you believe otherwise, you're a denier and i just -- number one, i'm offended by that and i think most intellectually engaged folks ought to be. note saying you are, but i'm saying you ought to be. >> 14-year run has the ceo of

texas, and when you went to the state convention in ft. worth you were very well received. however, when it came to the presidential saw the people you were eclipsed by senator crud and in every state poll i've seen of your own republicans, cruz comes out far ahead of you. why is he so much more popular than you are being relatively new on the scene? how can you convince people outside the state that you could make a presidential run if you don't have the backing of people in your own state? >> i'll remind you that in 2009, i was 30 points behind senator hutchison when he started our race for governor. polls are polls and they are a snapshot of time and i do not pay a lot of attention to polls

during periods of -- in between periods, let me put it that way. >> carl? governor, let me go back to the question of experience. which you mentioned is one of the key aspects in yoir background. it would help you. as governor of texas, you've had to deal with a solidly republic-led legislature that by and large shares your views in you went to washington you noticed the situation is different than that. the structure is different and the political makeup is different. how does your experience dealing with a one-party legislature in effect, prepare you to deal in this very complex situation we have in washington? >> well, a number of things come

okay mind. one is texas is not quite the monolithic place that you describe it as. we worked with our democratic colleagues on a fairly regular basis. and that's, you know, i've taken half a loaf, a number of times. when the alternative was no loaf, that's one of the experiences i bring to the table and -- i would not deal with my own party or the opposition party. i think it's hard work and i think you got to spend a lot of time on capitol hill with members of not just opposite party, but your own party. and you know, you all are the experts here. you've spent more time up here than i have.

i would suggest to you as we went around the table and you tell me that this president really hadn't spent that much time on capitol hill working way toing to find any solution to these issues. and that's noed not how i understand if. i have, for 14 years, reached out to the democrats and found places where we could agree and work together on. let me give you a great example. in -- i think about 2002, a democrat judge came to me and said, governor, take a look at this idea about how we deal with nonviolent first-time drug defenders in dallas. it was a drug court. and i looked at it and it made sense. we have had this lock them up, throw away the key mentality in texas and don't get confused.

we're still pretty tough on crime in texas. but we took that idea and we implemented it. we have veteran's court. we have prostitution court. we have a host of these courts which we've given the judges basically flexibility in saying to the individual, and these are nonviolent first-time defenders. here are some options. and it's worked. our crime rate in texas is at the lowest level since 1968. and we shut down three prison the. other states are building prisons and we're shutting them down. i full well give credit to the judge in dallas for that. it was his idea. and i think that's what's

missing in washington, d.c. we've moved to this time when we're just -- i'd rather get nolo than let the other side take credit for getting a slice. from my perspective it needs to change and i think it can change and it takes a lot of work. like a lot of work. and up to be willing to share the credit, so i'm still hopeful that there are folks on the other side of the aisle that you could reach out to and i look back to the day when reagan and tip o'neal, i think, they go have a tadi together after work. i'm thinking that may be missing right now. >> you got about six minutes left, michael? >> you mentioned side issues.

can you name three specific side issues that you think the parties may not be focusing on? >> ought not be focusing on? when you get distracted -- i'm thinking san francisco. and i go to the to ask about an issue. instead of saying we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country to everybody. and get back to talking about -- whether you're gay or straight, you need to be having a job. those are the groups i want to get in it and i readily admit i stepped right in it. but that's a great example of being -- if you really are going to be the party that's going to talk to everybody, and say, listen, you may not agree with all of my positions, but getting you and your family and your loved ones the opportunity to

live a better life because we have created a clooimt in this country where your going to have a jooeb and a good-paying job, if we'll do that, then i think we'll be successful. if we spend all of our time and being deflected over on to this social issue or that social issue, then -- we're an incredibly diverse mosaic of a diverse country. it goes back to the tenth amendment belief. a lot of these issues need to be decided at the state level. social issues, a couple of them that i think. our country will be happy. if we're economically happy and we allow people to go live in the environments in which they're most comfortable, weir

going to be a happier country. that at to be one of our ghomes as a government to help not make our people economically sounder but find ways so that they live in peace and happiness. >> we got nine or ten people who want questions so we'll end with mark. you'll va to come back, sir, sometime soon. >> thank you so much for being a witness today. could you name for us, the one initiative -- beurocracy initiative over the past five and a half years of thement that you most admire or respect? >> by one of his major spokes people and one of his cabinet members, whenev eric holder tald about criminal justice reform, allowing and i've already talked about this, from the standpoint

of criminal justice and the drug courts. of his administration standing up and saying, you know what? you're doing something right there. >> that's it. >> that gives us a minute and a half. mr. moody? you have a minute and a half? >> one needs to be physically as well as mentally prepared to run for president. in 2012 you had some health issues georgie dogging you and pain prp those behind you? have you cleared yourself of those health issues? is there anything ahead possibly in '16 that still might be dogging you now? >> no. i'm healthy. i did two things that were for me. i quit running. and i replaced that with a whole lot of core exercises and i

won't bore you with my personal fitness program. but i do a lot of sit-ups. pull-ups, and crunches and planks and ride a bbicycle for about 45 minutes a day. and then i stop wearing cowboy boots. this versus this. this is better. >> those issues are behind you? your doctors told you you're clear for now? >> yeah. i've had a number of scans of my back and it was a very successful surgery. very successful surgery. so the -- all the distraction that was ongoing with the sciatic is gone. that's not to say from time to time i'll gel a pain in the backside. >> that's why you came here,

right? >> and a couple of ibuprofens take that away. irs commissioner testified today before a house panel. about missing agency e-mails in connection to the irs's targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. watch the testimony before the highways ways and means committee at 8:00 eastern on c-span. this weekend on news makers, our guest is democratic national committee chair, debbie wasserman schultz. the florida congresswoman talks to us about the 2014 american elections and reacts to this week's leadership elections. this airs on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 pchl eastern. on c-span. transparency and freedom of

information and i think my colleagues in journalism would a similar grade whether they're liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process is a joke. it was already well on its way prior to the obama administration. but this administration is perfected the stall. the delay, the redactions. the excuses. and really, it's shocking. i kneel strongly the information they old hold and protect many times belongings to the public. we own it. there's no sense of that. we own it. they covet it like they're a private corporation. defending their trade secrets raerd than understanding what they hold is information they gathered on our behalf. >> any award winning journalist cheryl atkinson on the change face of network news. that's sunday night at 8:00. this weekend, american history tv is live from the gettysburg college civil war

institute. the prison exchange of army sergeant bo bergdahl was the subject of a hearing by two house foreign affairs subcommittees this week. a sol jer who served with sergeantbe sergeant bergdahl said he should be arched. the hearing is two and a half hour hours. the subcommittee will come to order. without objection, all members will have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the

record subject to the length limitation and rules. the purpose of this hearing is to hear more about sergeant bo bergdahl and his exchain for five frist prisoners from guantanamo bay. let's hope theberg da bergdahl negotiators are not the ones negotiating with iran over nuclear wepz. releasing five taliban commanders may put the lives of senior service members and americans around the world at risk. one of the five was a deputy chief of the taliban's intelligence service. one detainee fought alongside al qaeda as a taliban military general. another was a senior commander wanted by the united nations for war crimes and worked closely with al qaeda and their affiliates. in fact, he led an attack before 9/11. he called this attack an important part of the 9/11 total strategy and still another was a

close conif i dent of taliban leader omar. the terms of the release are quite did you evering disturbing. they may help out while in qatar and likely all of them will fight alongside the taliban and afghanistan later in the year. that will be about the time the united states forces will be leaving and the afghans are own their own. it appears that recent law that was signed by the president was violated in this secret deal. this law among other things requires two things. that the administration must notify congress 30 days before releasing guantanamo bay detain nees. and second, the administration has to specifically tell congress how releasing each terrorist is in the national security interest of the united states. the administration did neither. it has been the policy of the united states, not to negotiate update with terrorists. and this seems to be also have been violated.

the ones who held sergeant bergdahl. a designated terrorist organization according to the united states state department and has killed countless americans and afghan soldiers. it maintains close ties with al qaeda and the most dangerous terrorist group fighting in afghanistan. it doesn't matter that qatar acts as a go-between in the united states. but it did involve negotiating with terrorists in the network. this raises another concern close to home in texas. one of my constituents, victor love lady was taken hostage during the terrorist attack on annal gerian gas facility in january of 2013. an event many americans have for gotten. after he hid some of his co-workers in a space in the refinery. the terrorist never found the cowork eggs and they eventually escaped. it's been reported the hostage takers wanted to trade -- those three americans hostages at the facility including victor for two convicted tripss in united states custody.

victor's brother, michael and his daughter, erin, wrote to me and told me sthern told by our government during the attack theites does not negotiate with terrorists. victor was later killed. i asked for unanimous consent the letters be made part of the record, so ordered. the bergdahl release troubled them and rightfully so. victor's daughter wrote to me in this letter the question that continues to come to mind is what maersk one american life more important than another and if we're negotiating for one why would we not negotiate for everybody. i cannot answer that question. and i really do not know what the united states policy is on negotiating with terrorists. maybe we'll find out. negotiating with the designated terrorist organization like we did with the network is unprecedented. the department of defense says it will hold sergeant bergdahl accountable for his actions and national security adviser, susan rice, has said that sergeant bergdahl deserved and served

with honor and distinction. once again, this hashing will she had more light on this issue. he will discuss bergdahl's disappearance. chuck hagel is on record he wasn't aware of a soldier that lost his life. the family of one of those brave american who is gave his life, lieutenant derrin andrews is here to set the record straight. he earned the silver star for his actions which included protecting his brothers in arms and taking the brunt of the tam ban rocket propelled grenade that ultimately took his life. he left behind a pregnant wife and young son tell the of his death. today the witnesses will tell us what happened in ooern afghanistan in 2009. those who have suffered as a result and what this so-called deal may mean for afghanistan and the united states going forward. i'll yield back my time and recognize the ranking member

from california, mr. sherman, for five minutes. >> thank you. >> mr. andrews, we know you're the father of derrin andrews, second lieutenant, who gave his life for his country. we can't thank you enough for your family's sacrifice. we salute derrin's courage. i would also like to thank you, specialist, for your service to our country. is a senior security fellow at the new american foundation who commanded special forces in eastern afghanistan. thank you very much for you service. and dr. jacobson, thank you for you 20 years of service in the military, including your deployment to afghanistan. purse, as to preliminary issue on iraq, let me point out that

we do not have forces in iraq. we do not have a status of forces agreement with iraq. it was president bush that installed maliki as prime minister of iraq in 2006. and the misgovernance of prime minister maliki is directly responsible for the violence taking place this that country today. it should not be surprising that maliki refused to enter a status of forces agreement with the united states under president obama. he refused to enter a long term ta us the of forces agreement with president bush. a man that allowed him to take power. as to releases from guantanamo, while we're focusing today on five guantanamo prisoners being released. president bush released over 500 prisoners from guantanamo. most of them were dangerous. over 100 of them we know they're fighting us on the battlefield

and we know where. most of the others are fighting against us as well and we can't pinpoint would they are located. and what did we get for the 500 that president bush released? absolutely nothing. except thank you notes from their native countries. as to section 1035-d of the national defense authorization act and the president has filed a report. members of this committee can go read it. it is in depth. it is arguably late. as many reports to congress are. keep in mind that we have to construe section 1035 d so as to avoid constitutional questions. and therefore, it has been and should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. keep in mind that the last

republican attorney general of the united states, stated that this code section is unconstitutional. to the extent it acts to prevent a prisoner exchange. thousand, i would have preferred if president obama had, indeed, conferred with leaders of congress. i'm glad to see he's conferring with congressional leaders about what to do in iraq. america is strongest when our president views members of congress as a source of input and not persons to be notified only when the any information is compelled by a constitutionally valid statute. and i will point out that leaders of congress can keep a secret. some 16 congressional leaders knew that we had ascertained the hiding place of osama bin laden and that information did not leak. as to negotiating with terrorists. it's a nice phrase that we don't do it. the fact is, a do it all the

time. this bush administration negotiated with every single terrorist regime in the world. we identified five state sponsors of terrorism. and the bush administration negotiated with cuba, iran, sue dn, syria and north korea. the bush administration paid an al qaeda fit yacht a ransome for the released of them secretary of state designated them as an organization authorized for legal authorization. now it is said that because we paid a price for the are lease of bergdahl, this put terrorists around the would on notice of a fact they somehow didn't flow before. and that is, america cares about those who are detained. a walk through the halls of this building. shows the pow flags from the vietnam war.

no one in the world doesn't know that we care about our detainees. there are the resolutions introduced by republican members available to anyone on the internet that shows that we regard the release of sergeant bergdahl as national objective. bringing our prisoners home is important to america. the enemy is already knows that and we know it as well and i yield back. >> the chair imagines to hear the opening statements of all the witnesses and come back from the testimony after the vote. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the middle east subdivision. subcommittee chairman. not the ranking member, although -- >> good enough. >> thinks you should be.

>> for five minutes. >> thank you. i thank the witnesses for being with us. especially mr. andrews whose son was killed in afghanistan in 2009. and mr. full and mr. walls, thank you for you service. mr. andrews, i cannot imagine what it would feel like to lose a child in the service of our nation but as a stepmother of a u.s. marine aviator who served in iraq and a mother-in-law to another marine aviator who served in both iraq and afghanistan, i know the sleepless nights and the constant worry that parents face when their child or loved ones are constantly in harm's way. our country owes our brave men and women who have served and earned their gratitude a debt that can never be repaid. it must start with being completely fort coming with them. in late 2011, while i was chair, the administration gathered the chairman and ranking members of the national security committees

as well as congressional leadership, to brief us on a potential prisoner swap of taliban terrorists for sergeant bo bergdahl and although the meeting was classified news reports from earlier this month, indicated that the administration had a team of officials from the national security council pentagon, state department, cia, dreg tore of national intelligence quarterback present the administration's plan to us. at the time of the briefing, using all available information give ven to me. i was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap, said so at the meeting as were many of our colleagues. my opinion has not changed and as more information has been revealed. i oppose the swap not only not because i did not want to bring bo home, it's important to have him home and out of the hands of the taliban. i oppose the swap because a proposal would have resulted in a huge cou for the taliban. it would have jeopardized the safety and security of our brave men and women in uniform and

compromise our national security interest. with so many of our colleagues expressing our disapproval, the administration seemed to have gotten the message and dropped its exchange blap or saw we thought. and then earlier this month, i like the rest of my congressional colleagues and the american public, read the news that the administration has swapped five taliban commanders for the sergeant. despite its promises to notify connot to mention its legal authority to do so, the administration kept the deal secret and acted unilaterally. the deal is precisely the reason for the legal mandate that congress be given 30 days notice because the administration last a proven track record of yooefr stepping and abusing its authority. as we've already seen the taliban use this to its ben fet and using the videotape of the exchange as propaganda aband as a recruitment video and only emboldened them further. not only that, despite the agreement with the government of

qatar which is for one year, to superviez these five life level operatives there's no assurance they won't be back in the fight in short ord and orchestrate attacks from their lavish new haerkts. the fact we're placing our hope in qatar, especially in ejaipt where qatar's support for the brotherhood, actively worked against our interest and seeing a democratic fran cigarett itral likely damage ties with our from additional partners in the gulf. this may have serious implications as it relates to our efforts in iran. but this swap is for than just bo bergdahl or the taliban. it's about u.s. national security, the safety of our men and women in uniform. and uds about the administration's disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its obligations to congress. the administration's deal to swap five senior taliban officials for the sergeant has

far-reaching implications. negotiating and ultimately forging a deal with taliban terrorists unnecessarily endangers all of the service men and women who are operating in war zones right now that these five senior taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight and it inspires the taliban and other terrorist groups to conduct abductions of our armed forces personnel and we've seen one taliban commander admit the taliban has now encouraged by the results of the bergdahl trade. and then the questions of the legality of the administration's unilateral decision. and the frustration level and lack of trust that congress has with the administration as a result of this swap. there are many unanswered questions. for today it's important to have the opportunity to hear in some of the people and how this decision has impacts them personally those that served in afghanistan. fighting side-by-side with their fellow soldier, those service

men and women who may have been placed even further in harm's way as a result of this exchange. those who lost a loved one in afghanistan. they deserve to be heard and they deserve the truth. thank you mr. chairman for the time. >> thank you for yielding back your time. the chair recognizing the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman po and ranking member sherman. to our witnesses, thanks for appearing today. mr. andrews, i join with my colleagues and telling you that words are not enough to express our gratitude for you son and family for making the ultimate sacrifice for this yes. i appreciate you're being here today and will forever be grateful to daryn for his courageous service. and deeply grateful for your honorable service to this country and mr. jacobson and walls thank you for being here and your years of service. we all know that there are substantial questions surrounding the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl and the squaent decision to exchange the taliban five for his release.

it may take months before we though for sure what transpired in the days and weeks leading up to the disappearance of aerm sergeant bo bergdahl. was he suffering from psychological trauma? awol? a deserter? rest assured answers to these questions will come to light and the army will take arks on whatever it deems appropriate. i'm a bit perplexed. when some members of congress already decided the facts of this case. we have a solemn obligation to leave no american soldier behind. and when the opportunity to get an american soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we take it. this country has a long history of getting american servicemen back through prisoners exchanges because we promised the men and women when they signed up bravely to serve their country we would do everything we can to protect them and ensure that they return home. some of my come leaglleagues co

how his status should be treated. how the facts should be resolved. and that, perhaps, one concludes that he be left with the taliban. so i would ask, what kind of military court is it. what kind of military court of justice do we have? where members of congress play the role of judge and jury? mind someone guilty and leave it to the taliban to carry out the punishment? we have every rite to question why congress wasn't consulted or notified of this deal. i believe that was a mistake. but i would caution against prejudging the facts of this case. what message do we send our troops if we don't do everything we can to retrieve an american soldier that the army has officially declared missing and captured. we can have a debate over the price for the sergeant was too high and it's an appropriate debate to have. and we should be reminded of the

532 guantanamo bay detainees who were transferred before this president came to office. where is the outrage then? 24r are those who have suggested the administration has politicized this deal. i would point out that many members of this congress who are now saying that they opposed this deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange and were urging the administration to do more to secure the release of sergeant bergdahl. turning back to our witnesses, mr. an dwrus, there is nothing that we can say to take away the pain of losing a child and i like again, to offer my sincerest gratitude for daryn's honorable service to his country. i thank you mr. full i thank you for you service and all of the witnesses for your commitment to protecting this nation. i appreciate the opportunity here from all of you today and i yield back. >> appreciate the gentlemen yielding back some of his time. the chair recognizes the individual members for one minute of their opening

statements. mr. from ohio, recognized for one minute. >> like many of my colleagues and most constituents i talk with i'm troubled with the administration's -- free the tal land leaders in exchange for sergeant bergdahl was the best deal we could get. "the washington post" reports that among the taliban five or the former taliban interior minister who was known to have close ties to osama bin laden. a former taliban army chief of staff who quarterback along with another of the pretaliban is thought to have been present when cia officer joony spam was killed in 2001 and two taliban operatives who wooirk closely with al qaeda. notab notably, the case file that says, is, quote, one of the most significant former taliban leaders detained, end quote, at guantanamo bay. i don't know how many of my colleagues have had the opportunity to visit our facility in guantanamo bay and look into the eyes of those involved in the killing of so

many, i've been there three times. as much as i'd like to think that they've learned the error of their ways and want nothing more than to spend a quiet life with our family in -- i'm afraid you'd have to put me down in the skeptical, very skeptical column. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair will hear the testimony or the opening statement of one moir member and then we'll hear the rest of them after the vote. rhode island is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i wanted to thank you and ranking members deutsch and sherman for holding today's hearing and all the witnesses, especially mr. andrews and specialist full for their services and for your willingness to share your very personal stories with us today. words can never adequately provide comfort to you, mr. andrews or to your family nor can words convey the deep gratitude of the entire nation. it's important that we take time

in the weeked and months ahead to diligently and thoroughly and dispassionately examine the details of several whooish-value prisoners from the detention facility at guantanamo bay. we should have never upset the long-held american tradition that we'll do everything possible to secure the release of an american service member. i'm hopeful today's hearing will highlight ways in which the administration and congress can work together to protect the safety of our armed forced and ensure the security of our country. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses we assembles in gaining greater clarity providing the circumstances surrounding the exchange of sergeant bergdahl and serve as a reminder to all of us we must stay focused on any american involvement in afghanistan and assuring the safe return of our fellow americans serving there. thank you and i yield back. >> the chair will be many recess for 15 minutes and we'll continue with opening statements and couple of our witnesses.

and we'll have the testimony of our witnesses. come to order. the chair recognizing the gentleman from illinois for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's fun listening to the strategy session across the aisle was, what are we going to do? let's blame bub. it seems to have worked for the last we're. i want to say first off, thank you to witnesses for being here. when i went 24r50u is your value training, i was told yourself country will never leave yao behind. i think it's important to note there was a mutual understanding that your country will never leave you behind if you never leave your country behind and then secondly there was a mutual understanding that there can be a cost that is too great to pay. your country promised to always search for you. it promised to move heaven and earth to come get you but i was never in survival training promised that my country would release some of the five biggest enemies of the united states and

the people that we tried to bring freedom to in exchange. i'm interested to harper what everybody saw as to why this happened and some of the things surrounding this. i only have a minute so i thank the chairman and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentle lady from florida, ms. frankel. i know you ran back. >> hello, thank you and thank you, gentlemen, for all being here. ms. andrews, my heart breaks for you and to the gentleman, i thank you for you service. i want to give a little different -- my own personal pempt. my son served both in iraq and afghanistan. as a united states marine and i'm very proud of that. he is home. but i'll tell you this. when he went off to war, i, of course, like probably most parents, not only feared he would not come home alooiv or that he would come homovery

maimed but for me, my biggest worry was that he would be taken as a prisoner of waur, tortured, put in a cage. it was just unimaginable. and that's why i believe so strongly in the u.s. military principle that we should leave no man or woman behind. it maintains confidence, it maintains order. when we send our young men and women off to war, they should know we have their backs. we will do everything possible to bring them home. thank you again for your service and, sir, for your loss. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton for one minute. >> five years ago today i was a captain in the united states army in logman province, so i think i will take the prerogative to speak on behalf of the soldiers who served in

afghanistan. i find it offensive and insulting this administration up to and including the president would cite the principle of leaving no man behind to justify this action. the ranger creed, i will never leave a fallen comrade. all the soldiers who went after him in the months and weeks after his disappearance knowing he had deserted. when we made those promises to each other, with didn't promise we would exchange five stone cold caal can killers for each other. would you exchange kcleed sheik mohamed? show yourself, speak in your own name, have the courage of your convictions and if you don't,

shut up and stand back and thank these men for their service. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm hearing my colleagues on the other side talking about, oh, don't politicize this, but blame bush or whatever. seems to me the president politicized this when he had a white house rose garden ceremony for mr. bergdahl's parents. i'm going to ask mr. andrews and would like to know whether any of the people who served honorably and were killed in action were given the courtesy of a rose garden ceremony at the white house. i think the answer to that is probably no. the bottom line here is either what the president did benefited the security of the united states or it did not. i believe it did not. and i think that this was something that the american people disagree with and i see many of my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle are looking to essentially run interference for the administration by blaming previous presidents. that doesn't cut it. let's deal with this issue as its own. i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. andrews mind deepest sympathy to you and your family. that may be your wife behind you? there aren't any words to express the terrible sense of loss you must experience, and i've had friends and had similar losses and i -- my heart goes out to you. thank you for being here today. we're here today to examine the decision to exchange sergeant bowe bergdahl, soldier held in captivity for five years, for five detainees in guantanamo. now, it's easy to yield to the temptation to decide that mr.

bergdahl did not serve his country. i would caution my colleagues, this isn't a partisan affair. this is about somebody's service and we should withhold judgment on the quality and nature of that service until the facts are known. the benefit of the doubt belongs to mr. bergdahl pending that. it is not the congress in advance to decide somebody's status before we justify leaving no one behind. so i'm interested in this hearing. i'm interested in the facts and i plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this one time, let us resist the temptation of partisanship. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recently returned from guantanamo. and got to look in the eyes of many of the many of the detai e

detainees that are there. make no mistake, the ones we released in no comparison to the 400, 500 released prior. these men were a danger to the ones who guarded them, so dangerous we can't identify those who do guard them for their own protection. they are not choir boys, but i will assure you they're singing a song. it is a death march for those men and women who will come in their way in the future and the cost, in my opinion, was way too high to release the taliban five in exchange for this. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. weber for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman mind league is correct. this is not a partisan affair. this is a committee of foreign affai affairs, and that it is. it is a foreign affair. the president is charged with negotiating on our behalf. unfortunately, i hope we come to the conclusion to implore this preside

president, mr. president, stop negotiating on our behalf, please. some would they conventional and military terms what the president did, we get one conventional weapon, some would say a dud, they've got five nuclear weapons. maybe we need to come to the conclusion to send a letter to the president, please, mr. president, stop negotiating for us. as to the andrews, as abraham lincoln said in a letter to mrs. bixby, there's no words we can express to you, but to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your sacrifice. thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for one minute. >> i thank you very much. president obama has put american military personnel, u.s. diplomatic personnel and american businessmen and tourists at risk by releasing

five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured american. we have given terrorists the incentive to capture and hold hostages more and more. i would say that what we have to realize is that our president has just made a decision that will result in our country and our people being less safe than had he not made that decision. and, yes, president bush released 500 taliban that had been held in gitmo, but let me note he did not make a deal for them. he did a survey to find out if they were the least threatening of those people who were being held. thad he done a deal for them, we would be condemning him as well. the fact is this was an exchange, a specific exchange, a quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists around the world to seek other hostages to make similar deals. he has done a great -- our

president has done a great disservice to those who defend us as well as to the people of the united states. he's put us as risk. >> gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and miss andrews, thank you so much for your family's service. specialist, thank you for your service. it's very personal to me. my two oldest sons served in iraq. my third son served in egypt and my fourth son just returned from his service in afghanistan. so i truly have a great appreciation of the commitment of military families, service members, veterans. and the president has disrespected all of them by releasing five taliban. the response was mass murder in pakistan. there were two attacks on the airport there in karachi. dozens of people were murdered. also, shiite pilgrims were murdered just last week. the response is very, very

clear. in fact, we found out that one of the taliban leaders said how much he appreciated the release, the pardon of one of the particular taliban five who was the equivalent of 10,000 taliban fighters. this is serious. the president has put the american people at risk. thank you for being here. >> does any other member wish to be recognized for an opening statement? seeing none, the chair will go into the statements of the witnesses. without objection, all the witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record. i ask that each witness please keep your presentation to no more than five minutes. when you see the red light come on, that means stop. you are welcome to summarize your prepared statements if you need to. the witnesses are also advised that as usual, testimony provided to the subcommittee is subject to the false statements act under 18 usc section 1001 and thus, any deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of material information is punishable by law. i will introduce each of the witnesses and then we will allow

them to testify in the order that they are seated. mr. andy andrews is the father of the fallen second lieutenant darryn andrews, who was reportedly killed while on mission to look for sergeant bergdahl. he is joined by his wife, sandra andrews, who is seated directly behind him, and she is wearing the dog tags of her son. mr. andrews, i know your time is limited because you have to catch a plane to go back to houston for chemotherapy. we appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to washington and wish you both a quick recovery. specialist cody full is a specialist in sergeant bergdahl's squad at the time he disappeared, and they were previously roommates together. mr. mike waltz is the senior national security fellow at the new america foundation. mr. waltz commanded a special forces company in east