the chair: on this vote the yeas are 194, the nays are 227, he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the motion is that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the committee of the whole house on state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4800 and directs me to report it has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4800 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek reck mission? mr. aderholt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it will adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. o ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. please take your conversations rom the floor. the chair will receive a message. the clerk: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam

secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the snass has passed, with amendments, h.r. 3230, pay our guard and reserve act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will be in order. take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. speaker, u.s. customs and border protection currently possesses a large fleet of

unmanned aerial systems or u.a.f.'s. -- u.a.s.'s. this technology can be a valuable asset and we want them to use it to our benefit on the border, to enforce border security. d between 2010 and 2012, the c.b.f. flew nearly 700 missions on behalf of other federal, state and local agencies, other one, not flying the border, in other words. mr. perry: as a matter of fact, some agencies have absolutely nothing to do with border security such as u.s. forest service and the minnesota department of natural resources. i've researched this issue, mr. speaker, and found no codified procedures for how d.h.s., department of homeland security, loans their drones out. certainly the use of drones for unapproved purposes is unacceptable and poses a myriad of civil liberty concerns, not to mention the fact that it potentially abuses taxpayer dollars, mr. speaker. we need to ensure that the

proper oversight is conducted, civil liberties are upheld and taxpayer dollars aren't squandered. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garcia: mr. speaker, i rise to honor u.s. army reserve master sergeant alberto santiago from homestead, florida. who served our country with courage and honor for over 40 years. during his career, master sergeant has deployed in hawaii, iraq, due beauty, niger, somalia and many other countries in the horn of africa and is a veteran of operation desert storm, iraqi freedom, desert shield and new dawn. for his service, he received a bronze star, a liberation medal, iraqi campaign medal, the combat action badge.

master sergeant santiago and his family have made tremendous sacrifices in the defense of our country. as the master sergeant retires from u.s. army service, i would like to honor his service and wish him the best in all his future endeavors and extend the thanks of a grateful nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to address the e.p.a. and army corps of engineers' proposed regulation, quote, the united states clean water role. we all want healthy watersheds, especially those who make their living off the land, whether through farmer, natural resource development andujar vesting, for reng reaction and tourism. the e.p.a. suggested expanding

reach of the clean water act is necessary. yet they've not illustrated a -- illustrated a clear end of the jurisdiction they seek. as a result, maybe are concerned about the threat to private property rights, active land management, agriculture and energy development, especially in rural communities. without direct input from stakeholders in the legislative process, these new regulations would circumvent congressional approval with limited transparency. economists have suggested the e.p.a. is systematically underestimated the economic impact that may occur. counties across the country are concerned about losing control over their ability for local planning. mr. speaker, the american people elected the representatives of this body to preside over the making of law. an agency cannot rule byifyat. the american people deserve better. i -- byify ot. the american people deserve better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the state of new jersey, which is celebrating this year her 350th anniversary. tomorrow i will introduce in the house a resolution with all the members of the new jersey house delegation, a resolution commemorating our state's rich heritage and this 350th anniversary milestone. mr. holt: and it is my understanding that senator men endez will be introducing a -- menendez will be introducing a similar resolution. sips its founding in the year 1664, new jersey has played an instrumental role in the establishment of our country, serving as the location of more military engagements than any other colony. and becoming the first state to ratify the bill of rights. new jersey offers -- authors and artists have forever enhanced our country's cultural landscape and of course the charm of our state's physical landscape and shore line can be be -- cannot be overstated. week of long served as a

calderon of innovation, supporting leading scientists and innovators in ground breaking technologies and meds sins. i ask my colleagues -- medicines. i ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating new jersey's history of innovation, liberty and divert this year and every year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise to highlight the bipartisan action that congress stop en recently to invasive species like asian carp from jeopardizing minnesota's ecological and economic health. the invasive asian carp is more than just a nuisance. it is a danger to over 15 different species of fish and is threatening minnesota's thriving tourist industry, an industry that generates $11 billion in annual sales and supports thousands of jobs. in addition to the economic impact, continued expansion of the asian carp into our waterways will mean less

recreation opportunities to enjoy minnesota's beautiful lakes, rivers and waterways. thankfully, mr. speaker, congress took action to help stop the spread of this invasive nish. by passing legislation -- fish. by passing legislation of requiring the closure of the upper saint anthony's lock and dam. it will stop asian carp from swimming upstream and while more can be done to solve our problems with invasive species, this provision absolutely is an important step in preserving our aquatic ecosystems. i'd like to thank my colleagues in the minnesota delegation for coming together on this issue and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a great deal has been going on in the last 24 hours. help of surprises which make life interesting. . speaker, i want to call to

attention again the human tragedy that has arisen in africa, in nine specifically, as i was there at -- nige specifically, as i was -- nige specifically, as i was -- nigeria specifically, as i was there last week for a couple of days and meeting with some of the mothers of girls who were kidnapped. and there was an excellent story in "the blaze" done by sara carter today where she , two precious and hope to girls' names, ran for their lives through the thick brush of the nigerian forest. they could feel their hearts pounding, their bare feet scraped from the rocks and their legs throbbing from the thorns that penetrated their

skin as they crawled low through the tangle to avoid detection. they were running from the armed islamist fighters who had seized them and approximately 300 other girls, school girls, from what they had believed was the safety of their boarding in one of the most brazen mass kidnappings in history. only the night before the two 15-year-olds had been sleeping peacefully. it was mid april and many of the girls had chosen to try to stay cool by sleeping underneath the night sky and only -- in only their shirts and undergarments, while others left the windows of their dormitories wide open to stave off the humidity. what they didn't expect shortly after they closed their eyes was that their borled would -- their world would soon be turned upside down. this is the story of the night that precious and hope were

and against haram all odds escaped the next day. while so many of their classmates remain missing. i've met those girls, mr. peaker, and they are precious, hopeful girls. but their hearts have been quite broken even though they escaped. they've had many nightmares when they lie down because they realize that what has happened o them is happening to their friends every day. and i did ask one of the pastors from the area, that i met there, that was trying to assist the

families, the mothers of the girls that had escaped. i asked, what happened to the men? what happened to the fathers? and i was told that so many of them feel so helpless and they feel so guilty because now they don't even know where their girls are, but they know what's happening to them every day and they can't stand the thought of what's happening to their daughters every day and they know it's happening and so many of the fathers don't feel worthy to be sleeping in their own homes, they've gone into the sleep, be there, while their daughters are suffering at e hands of these radical

islamists that think somehow they serve a god that thinks it's cute and it's funny, as one leader was laughing, talking about the sexual slavery of the girls. and that they should be sold into sexual slavery. it's just sheer leavell. and i understand -- sheer evil. and i understand that moderate muslims do not approve of this activity. i met -- was with some moderate muslims in nigh jeer qua that understand how a-- in nigeria that understand how appalling and outrageous this activity is. but it's time moderate muslims around the world actually stood

up to the radical islam that is doing so much damage in this evil. nd so much it's time they stood up. counselors had told me that they had so much trouble trying to help these mothers because they're so distraught, and what they've been told over and over and over again is, nobody cares. and if america ever came up, it was made clear that nobody in america cares. they're not going to -- they're certainly not going to come. so it's been very rough for them. but i got an email today from one of the principals of the n.g.o. unlikely heroes that is helping the families of the

girls that have been able to escape so far, and she said even just one person from america ming has opened the doors to hem having hope. now if one lowly, bald-headed y from east texas, just by going over and meeting with these women and children, meeting with the pastors, the , unselors, could provide hope hope sufficient to open the doors to so many more who have been victims, who thought it was hopeless and nobody cared, now today in the last few days coming forward.

just think what could have happened if our beautiful first lady had made a trip to nigeria, even ur president had taken actions that got back to the families so they knew there was hope. the united states has no business going to war in nigeria, we should not. but there are things that can be done without declaring war on a country when you find out that there is such a pervasive evil as boe co-ha ram, as al qaeda, as radical islam, that wants to wipe the united states off the map and doesn't mind killing, repeatedly raping young girls, burning churches, burning homes, terrorizing people, all because

they had this sick, perverted idea that their god thinks that's good fun. it's time for moderate muslims to stand up and stand for the god they believe in. hat would give even more hope. i had some pictures while i was there, i wasn't sure it was a good idea, but they said this is part of providing hope that somebody will take this to america and others will understand, and then if they can see pictures of it being presented in congress, that that adds even more hope and will help good people who have been victims for so long to rise up. america doesn't have to fight everybody's war. but they certainly have to do

more than a hash tag and a twitter. hashtags and twitters, as we saw work not sufficient to stop utin from invading crimea. hashtags, twitters were not sufficient to keep boko haram leaders from laughing at the sexual and horrible abuse of young girls kidnapped from school that they're still holding. at least president clinton was willing to send a missile from time to time to try to send a message. we've, in this administration sent hashtags instead. it doesn't provide a whole lot of hope. they don't follow twitter in the ungles of nigeria.

mr. speaker, these are many of the mothers of girls who were kidnapped by the radical islamist group boko haram. they were anxious, actually, to have a picture taken so that people could actually see and they wouldn't be forgotten. e faces of the minor girls have been blurred out. this woman here, mr. speaker, had two daughters who were kidnapped. she has great difficulty in talking about what happened the night they were kidnapped. without falling to the floor and weeping bitterly. their pastor over here on the

far right is a devout christian leader and is doing all he can to help the victims' families. this is that mother, mr. .peaker, and the pastor counselors said, just having someone come from the united an arm around them, hug, hold a hand, that's changed the outlook. imagine what would happen if the authority of our administration did something besides twitter.

the pastor is a sweetheart of a man. he seems so grateful. he said he knew what it meant that someone came all the way from america to show they cared. faces blurred, but this is one of the children. they said she has had trouble doing a whole lot of anything but weeping. deep, deep depression for her friends. mr. speaker, i do believe it's true, to whom much is given, of them much will be required. we have been blessed like no

nation in the history of the world. now, one of the ways you provide hope, and it's throughout the book of proverbs, throughout the bible itself, government is supposed to show impartiality and take care of those within its country. some wonder, well, gee, aren't we supposed to help our neighbors, and neighbors can be from other countries? that's absolutely correct. as individuals we are supposed to help our neighbors. and our neighbors can be from other countries. but there is a sworn obligation protect ment to help within ep people safe the country's borders.

it ne of the reasons that is helpful in a government role to reach out to people and give them thope defeat their enemies and stand up to their enemies is because, as president bush used to say, i'd much rather fight our enemies somewhere else instead of around our own homes. i would think that it's been done in different places around we can go to war, but, send a little help. in libya, when we knew they were rebels supported by al qaeda, we ended up having some kind of operation to send weapons in. getting weapons to people we new included al qaeda. it's -- i've been wondering, how

many of those weapons were being bandied about the night chris stevens, sean smith, thai woods and glen odoherty were killed. and yet we have nations that are friendly nations, where we know they're not evil, not possessed by evil, wanting to fight evil, radical islam that is a threat to people in this country. anywhere radical islam exists, it exists with the belief that there should be a worldwide caliphate and everyone, including the people in the great satan of america, should be destroyed or sub jew gated at the -- or subjugated at the very -- sub you gated. at the very best make them pay a

tax for the right to exist and -- in another religion in a muslim country if not killed or iped out altogether. i certainly won't forget those families in nigeria. and it's startling to think how much could be helped by doing something more than twitter. that's no substitute for foreign policy. as our moderate muslim friends, our international atheist friends, our christian friends, they feel like we ought to stand up against evil that ultimately would be a threat to us. and i think people should not forget that the taliban was

defeated within a matter of short months in afghanistan without a single american loss of life. up to and including that famous ride uphill led by the northern whom i've met a number of times. the taliban was routed and defeated. no american blood was shed to that point. there are ways to fight evil without going to war. but if you're not going to soldiers, for -- fight, for our soldiers' and military members' sake, don't leave them stranded telling them to hold what they got when it may include i.e.d.'s. the lesson from vietnam should have been, we're not going to

send our military anywhere that we don't give them all of the weapons they need to fight, to win and come home. 're not, never have been empire builders. never have been. that's why the people in france still speak french and in germany they speak german. italy they speak italian. we've never been about building an empire. we've been about liberty, freedom. we want to be left alone but when evil raises its head, it's time to speak up. but the only way a nation can remain a nation very long and be effective without giving way to complete corruption or chaos is if the rule of law is observed impartially across the

board. and you can't have a law-abiding effective nation where there are immigration laws that say, here's the process you must go through in order to get into our country and over a million people a year go through that legal process and more millions are standing in line to go through that process and all they see and hear is that america is no longer a nation of laws, america now just lets anybody come in who comes. and we ignore the law, we become as a temporary third world nation saying, we're going to ignore the laws that have helped make us the reatest nation in the world.

i still haven't heard from this ministration any explanation s to why they might think that unaccompanied minors, under 1, are flocking to our -- under 18, are flocking to our border like never before. as i've explained, mr. speaker, spreads n the word through central america, south america that if you just come to america we're not sending anybody home, and story after story says and people come and they get word back home, we came, and sure enough they're not sending people home. and for the administration, for those in the administration who are not stupid but are ignorant of what's going on, here's an

article translated from el .alvador dated june 7 the headline, mr. speaker is, "u.s.a. will give legal assistance to children migrating alone." well, that's incentive. wow. it's really true, the newspaper said if you can just get your kids to the united states, the u.s. government will give them legal assistance. and the stories going back, it's not comfortable, some people are lying in large rooms together, but food's being provided and now they're going to provide legal assistance, medical care, medical needs are provided because that's who we are. the problem is you have to stop the humanitarian crisis by continuing to lure people into

the united states by saying, the united states law is the united states law. each of us in the federal , the ment, congress administration, we've taken an oath to support and defend our constitution which means we follow our federal laws, which means you've got to come into the united states legally. some estimate there might be a billion, a billion and a half people want to come into the united states. that would overwhelm, destroy the united states. we have an obligation to make sure we do it, we bring people in a rational, methodical way so that we don't destroy this great nation. and so it seems to be a bit hypocritical for countries that don't allow near as many people

n to their countries as we do, percentage-wise or otherwise, complain about unfair u.s. immigration laws. well, the only unfair -- well, there are some things that certainly need to be reformed and we could get that done immediately once the president ever gets around to securing the border. but we have got to get back to following the law. to enforcing the law. or we're going to lose the country. with what is happening on our southern border, with what is happening with the lawlessness in this city, people not only refusing to follow the law and ollow their oath, but actually coming up with ways to encourage people to come violate our law even more.

by the thousands. another article from el salvador newspaper, from june 5. "extension of suspension of student deportations." so, you know, the article here is making clear, yes, some came into the united states illegally but the president is suspending enforcement of the laws he's sworn to uphold. he just did it byifyat. he announced it -- by ifyat. he announced it, to to so shall it be. that's what happens in a monarchy. that's not supposed to happen here and if our friends down the other end of the hall in the senate would stand with us, we could get back to observing the constitution and protect the constitutional powers that are afforded to the congress and not to the other end here f pennsylvania avenue.

it's time so stand up. and perhaps if eem in this administration were not so busy luring people in by their words and actions, luring them to violating u.s. law, then maybe they would have more time to send more than a twitter to evil radicalist islamists wreaking havoc around the world that will ultimately end up on our doorstep because they still consider us the great satan. here's from a hon douran newspaper -- honduran newspaper. u.s. military base in california used to house children, and the article is translated from june 7, going through and explaining how, you know, these kids came up unaccompanied, we didn't turn them back, we brought them in, we're taking care of them. here's another article, though, brightbart announces board of security and public corruption

tip line from houston, u.s. board par petroleum has been overwhelmed. the federal government is releasing thousands of illegal immigrants per week. the information washington, d.c., shares about the border with the american people is often at odds with reality in the region and scores of foreign children were found to be packed into holding cells on u.s. soil. the news has reported a near steady stream of nexten -- mexican cartel activity and criminal efforts across the united states reported on a plethora of corrupted u.s. officials and law enforcement along or near the u.s.-mexico border and reported countless tales of human suffering due to an often wide open and unsecured border. brightbart, texas, is introducing a new tip line for border petroleum agents, custom and border protection officers, other law enforcement and other citizens to expose the reality of conditions along the u.s.-mexico border. quote, the new tip line is for

law enforcement or anyone who wants to speak out on discrepancies between what washington, d.c., is saying and what is actually occurring on the ground. unquote. brightbart, texas, managing director said. quote, whether you know of mexican cartel-related corruption occurring on u.s. soil, people are or government officials helping human trafficking, foreign children being kept in horrible conditions or being exploited, or simply feel the moral obligation to tell americans what is really occurring in the region. this tip line is four. unquote. we are competent and we are able to handle and research these matters. anyone can call in and email with information and we will do all we can to investigate and get the word out. the tip line number, the article says, is 877-204-2033.

brightbart, texas, managing director, brandon darby, can be reached. somebody's trying to make a difference. and so then here is a story from the "washington times" about chicken pox. from illegal child crossings. border petroleum agents who have already experienced infestation from illegal border crossings now fear that thousands of children who are sweeping into the united states are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments of even more serious nature. we are starting to see chicken pox, mrsa, staff infections, we are starting to see different viruses, said rio grande valley border patrol agent chris cabrera. meanwhile, agents are still fighting off the scabies. a highly contagious skin disease that causes massive itching due to burrowing mites.

the article goes on. we have an obligation to our to this country, to those we are supposed to provide a common defense for. and it is pretty tragedy what is happening now. ere is a situation report from hursday, may 29. r.g.v. sector unified coordination group, e.o.c., it oes through numbers. u.a.c.'s, unaccompanied children, running through or coming kids being

into the country illegally and then as u.s. district judge has reported, then department of human or homeland security has been engaging in human trafficking. come into the country, we'll take to you your parents, even if they are illegally here, leave your aunt and uncle, family, come with human traffickers to the united states and we will get you to wherever your parents will be and if you're coming and your parents are not with you and they're not in the united states, they will find somebody to take care of you. that's not the message that is literally being sent out by this administration, but that is certainly the message that's

being communicated by our actions. of s a result, the number what this human smuggling report says caused illegal alien apprehensions by southwest border sector shows to be skyrocketing, skyrocketing. it's incredible the number of people that are now flooding into the united states because they have heard -- nobody's following their oath with this administration. they're not enforcing the law, they've become like our country, basically. they're ignoring the law. it's great, come on now. here's a report from 9 june.

1600 hours. regarding the unaccompanied children, u.c., influx. it reports, mr. speakering, for the entire month of -- mr. speaker, for the entire month of y, there were 9,000 children screened by border patrol but just in the first eight days of june there have been 6,956 children screened by the border patrol and as i understand it, may was far bigger than april and april bigger than march. i mean, this is increasing because the administration is -- has not gotten serious about abiding by its oath, by not providing a common defense, not enforcing our borders, not nforcing our immigration laws.

a nation that refuses to enforce such important laws is going to find, when it gets around to , ciding the nation is at risk will find that it is, quite possibly, too late. but instead of being concerned , ut physical lowing an oath enforcing immigration laws, making sure that people have filled out the proper documents, gotten a visa legally, properly, oming in the proper way. we had many officials who were

brought in, made aware of this the ahl swap, except for people the law required to be told. yeah, the members of congress. the lawlessness goes on. we have got to stand up and say, nough is enough. his article from "u.s. news" titled, officials predicted detainees in bowe bergdahl swap would rejoin the taliban. from julian barnes, date june 10. -- dated june 10. from washington, before the u.s. transferred the five detainees to secure the freedom of sergeant bowe bergdahl, american intelligence officials predicted

that two of the men would return to senior positions with the militant group, according to u.s. officials. the classified assessment and consensus of spy agencies compiled during the prisoner swap deliberations said two others of the five were likely to assume active roles within the taliban while only one of the five released detainees was considered likely to end active participation in the group's effort to undermine the elected government of afghanistan and here mistake, it's not in this article, but these people do not just believe in being hostile to the government of afghanistan. they consider the united states the great satan. and while this is going on and we're releasing terrorists, who , ll ultimately kill americans

and there will be, mark my words, there will be americans die unnecessarily because of the release of these murderous thugs. and for anyone who says, well, you know, they didn't technically stab anybody or cut off their heads, they believe they are -- they believe. they are complicit. they support. they assist. and under every state's law i'm aware of and federal law that makes them a principal. that makes them guilty of the crime itself. i would think, under the lodge -- logic of those who say, we don't think they actually murdered somebody themselves, under that scenario, khalid sheikh mohammed admission that he planned 9/11, 2001, and that he glorifies allah if he's terrorized americans, he's not really a murderer because he didn't actually fly the plane in

that killed them himself. he just planned it and made sure that it was carried out. that's some pretty weak reasoning. but this is going to cost american lives. letting these five taliban go. there was a bill that my friend, dana rohrabacher filed, some of us signed on. it would have prevented the executive branch from taking any action to release four of these five that were released. that's how serious we took it. but the administration seems to think, hey, it was a good deal. we made a good deal. well, it wasn't a good deal. u can't release people who have engaged in evil this serious, who have not recanted

their evil, who want to go back and commit atrocities against nonradical islamists, whether moderate muslims but especially christians and jews, and not expect that to come back on you and hurt you. and then in this article, from fox news, published june 11, day, hay gal admits -- hagel admits they mishandled the swap. chuck hagel was on capitol hill to testify before the house armed service committees. the defense secretary said he sowlingt to ease concerns about the controversial swap of five hardened taliban leaders for sernlt bowe bergdahl but under pressure from lawmakers, act knowledged the administration mishandled the announcement. quote, we didn't handle some of this right. unquote. hagel admitted to the house armed services committee. toward the end of the first

public hearing on the prisoner ex- the chaplain:. the hearing lasted more than five hours as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle voiced concerns about the trade while some also accused republicans of exaggerating the security threats. it's unfortunate that names aren't mentioned as to who said republicans were exaggerating the security threats because mr. speaker, when americans are lled because of this ill-advised swap, we need to be able to come back to the floor and say, these are the people that thought it was exaggerated to say that releasing murderous, evil thugs who hate america was not going to come back to bite us and to cost american lives.

another article, all this going on at the same time, u.s. watches as iraq speeds toward disaster. fighters for the al qaeda-linked islamic state of iraq and syria took masul today, giving the militant group control of iraq's second largest city and setting the country on a path toward chaos. mill fants already control fallujah, a city american marines took in 2004 in what was the bloodiest battle of the iraq war. now with both cities under their control, nearly after of iraq is in the grips of a group that is a formal affiliate of a terrorist group. equally troubling are the circumstances under which the city fell. iraqi security personnel simply abandoned their post, according to reports. it sounded like the bush

administration had teed up a security of forces agreement, sometimes called sofa, with iraq, could have gone ahead and signed it, but thought, because this is the way george w. bush thinks, even though he's a republican and a democrat was coming in, like his father he, feels like, i'll do something nice, i'll leave this teed up he, can come new york sign it, get a lot of credit, it'll help him start off a good presidency. guess what, it didn't work out. turns out bush should have gone ahead and worked out, signed the agreement because of the mishandling by this administration. now all of those precious american lives, the blood that was shed at mosul, fallujah, now has radical islamists back

standing on those spots where he blood was shed. it is time for what in east texas is called common sense. and here in washington is just sense. because it isn't common. to time for us to listen the american people, read the law and follow it. to keep our oaths to the american people. it's a failure to be vigilant -- the failure to be vigilant costs liberty. , still think, mr. speaker because to whom much is given, which is the united states, given more than any nation in

history, of them much is required. as we allow lawlessness to continue on our borders here in encouraging ithout law-abiding, decent activity in places where evil radical islam reening supreme, we will be held -- is reining supreme, we will be held accountable -- is reigning supreme, we will be held accountable. this country will suffer from its negligent and intentional neglect in following the law that has made us so great. for those who want to descend to third world status, this is how you do it. you just stop following your own laws. you start ruling by how you feel

about things instead of what the law says. we have an oath to do better. we have an obligation to the past generations who have sacrificed the last full measure of devotion, as lincoln said. cause failure will future generations to rise up and curse our names if we don't start forcing people to follow the law. mr. speaker, tonight i yield back with a broken heart. thank you very much, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to

adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjour >> eric cantor announced today that he would be resigning his

leadership post at the end of july. the congressman talk to reporters about his decision to step down. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. first of all, i just want to talk a little bit about what happened last night and then going forward. you know, growing up in the jewish faith, i grew up, went to hebrew school, read a lot in the old testament and you learn a lot about individual setbacks. but you also read and you learned that each setback is an opportunity and that there's always optimism for the future. and while i may have had a -- suffered a personal setback last night, i couldn't be more optimistic about the future of this country.

i'm honored that i've had the privilege to serve and represent the people of virginia's seventh district. people often lament what is wrong with this town, but i want to remind you of what's right. i've had the honor to serve with so many very distinguished colleagues. these are the people who fly across the country every single week, trying to do what they can to help their constituents live a better life. and these are members on both sides of the aisle. i can tell you i have been more than honored to serve as a part of the republican conference and serve as their majority leader for the last several years. my colleagues and i are also admirably served by a tremendous group of staff who put in tireless hours with the same noble intentions of trying to help the constituents of ours live a better life. these staffers are the backbone of this institution and i'm proud to have gotten to know

them and their families and actually call them parts of my family. i also like to recognize the sergeant at arms, the capitol police and in particular the dignitary protection division who i've come to know personally and i've gotten to know their often unheralded services that really are second to none. and it's been an honor to be in their company. it's especially been a privilege to get to know so many thousands, tens of thousands of constituents, of neighbors who make up the community of the greater richmond area. richmond, virginia, is a special place that i've called home my entire life. and i know that some of you, my friends in the press corps, have joined me there recently. but i encourage everyone to make a visit soon. we house republicans have made some tremendous strides over the past few years. we fought to allow every child, regardless of their zip code,

the ability to go to the school of their choice and to receive a quality education. we prioritized medical research and innovation and have led the way into an unprecedented era of technology and its breakthrough. we forced a reduction of spending in washington in consecutive years for the first time since the korean war. and we fought to protect people from losing their insurance or facing higher health care costs due to obamacare. we passed bill after bill that would increase take-home pay and reduce costs for working middle class american families. some people think washington gets nothing done. well, there's a stack of bills sitting in the senate that shows house republicans do get things done. we get a lot done. and our priority is building an america that works for the middle class families who are struggling in this country. but there is more work to do.

conservatives have solutions that can help alleviate the middle class squeeze and provide opportunity to all, regardless of their circumstance in life. i will continue to fight for each and every american who's looking to better themselves and help their families by pursuing the american dream. while i will not be on the ballot in november, i will be a champion for conservatives across the nation who are dedicated to preserving liberty and providing opportunity. truly what divides republicans pails in comparison to what divides us as conservatives from the left and their democratic party. i hope that all republicans will put minor differences aside and help elect a republican house and senate so that we may all benefit from a proper check and balance that leaves our nation

more secure, more prosperous and freer. the united states of america is the greatest gift to man kind. and i'm confident that our nation will overcome every struggle, exceed every challenge and share the message of freedom, prosperity and happiness to all liberty-seeking people around the world for decades to come. now, while i intend to serve out my term as a member of congress in the seventh district of virginia, effective july 31, i will be stepping down as majority leader. it is with great humility that i do so, knowing the tremendous honor it has been to hold this position. and with that i'm delighted to take some questions. >> why did you lose last night and what can the party learn from your loss last night? >> i'm going to leave the political analysis to y'all. i know that my team worked incredibly, incredibly hard, they did a tremendous amount of work. i'm proud of their work, i'm

grateful for what they did. and in the end the voters chose a different candidate. >> you're going to leave the political analysis to others but you personally, i'm sure you've done some reflecting in the past 24 hours. do you think that maybe you spent too much time here with your job as leader, tend nothing to your rank and file and not tending to your constituents back home? >> i was in my district every week. so there's a balance between holding a leadership position and serving constituents at home. but never was there a day i did not put the constituents of the seventh district of virginia first and i will continue to do so. >> what message do you believe that this sends about the future of immigration reform? should it be stopped at this point or do you think it should go forward and would you -- what have you talked to speaker boehner about? >> first of all, what i would say again on the political piece of that, i'll let y'all do the

analysis. but i will say that my position on immigration has not changed. it didn't change from before the election, during the election or the way it is today. i have always said the system is broken and it needs reforms. i think it is much more desirable and doable if we did it one step at a time, working towards where we have common ground and believe things in common. i don't believe in this my way or the highway approach that the president has laid out and i've continued to take that position. i've said that there's common ground at the border, there's common ground. i would like to see the issue of the kids addressed by those who didn't break any laws and come here unbeknownst to them. so again, i've always said that there should be and is common ground, if we'd just allow ourselves to work together. >> who do you want to succeed you and how divisive will the election be within your conference? >> i don't know who it is that will actually be running. i can tell you that if my dear friend and colleague kevin

mccarthy does decide to run, i think he'd make an outstanding majority leader. and i will be backing him with my full support. >> a lot of focus has been on the politic side but on the policy side people are wondering what this means for things like the export-import bank re-authorization. you touched on immigration and some other things that are going on. is this sort of the end of the legislating of this congress or do you think this congress can still get those things done? >> we've got obviously this month and next, we're very full on the floor with appropriations measures that my team and the committees are working on. we have got cftc authorization, we've got some energy bills that will speak to bringing down costs for americans who are facing the summer driving season. we've got a full set of bills. we've probably got another group of human trafficking bills to be done. the chairman of the house

financial services committee i believe has announced a markup on a bill. we'll look to do that this summer. there's a lot of things in motion. so, yes, we will continue to work and hopefully the senate will reciprocate so that we can get the work of the american people done. >> talk for a minute about, they say politics is local here, you lost your race, a lot of people are going to try to read broader things into this here. why shouldn't some republicans be scared as they move into their primaries, where you say you spent every week, some time, in your district, where they feel they have shored up their base and they get the challenge, why shouldn't be somebody running scared at this point after an unprecedented loss by the majority leader? >> i think that as you rightly suggest, all politics are local. and there was obviously a lot of attention that was cast on our race. but again i think that our members are in good position in their districts and again i'll leave the political analysis of what happens to y'all.

>> democrats say you were too extreme. conservatives said you were too compromising. what advice do you have for your successor? >> maybe we had it right somewhere in the middle. again, i think that this town should be about trying to strike common ground. i've always said it's better if we can agree to disagree but find areas which we can produce results and i've said this before, i've talked about my wife and i, almost how to married 25 years, and believe me we don't agree on everything. and we have managed to raise our family have a wonderful marriage, she's stood by me throughout this public office stuff and been a strong advocate for me and not always believing in everything that i believe in, but we managed to raise our family and do well. i don't think that's too unlike life, i don't think it's too unlike the legislative arena and i think more of that could probably be helpful. >> what do you think your loss says about the party's direction for 2016?

some of your republican colleagues are already saying that it only emboldens the tea party to elect a more conservative, uncompromising republican candidate. >> first of all, i'm going to leave the political analysis what have happened yesterday to y'all. i would say about the tea party, remember what -- \[captioning performed by when the tea party came around, it was in reaction to the overreach on the part of the obama administration with the stimulus, obama care, dodd frank , and the country rose up and said enough is enough. i do believe that what we have in public -- in common as republicans is a tremendous amount of commitment to a better and smaller government and greater opportunity and growth

for everybody. the differences we may have our slight and pale in comparison to the differences we have with the left. >> if you have the elections on july 19, and you are stepping down july 31, can you have a leader in waiting? >> you have to speak to the speaker about the timing of the leadership elections. i will say that we have a very busy floor period. we have a lot on the floor. my team has been heavily involved in drafting legislation and making sure we can run the floor and be expeditious and the legislative process. we look forward to a productive june and july. >> what about personal analysis? did you look in the mirror

before he went to sleep last night and said how did i let that saban? -- this happened. >> no. i believe we did all we could. there was a tremendous outpouring of support on all sides. thest came up short and voter selected another candidate. >> what is your next move? what do you think you'll be doing? what's that is probably between my wife and me. i will be looking to see how i can best serve. how i can be a part of what we really have been about here with the agenda. member what it is premised upon. the notion that conservative solutions of personal responsibility, more liberty can produce results and solve problems of the american people have been facing in an obama economy under the obama

administration. thank you all very much. >> to think you may run again? -- do you think you may run again in two years? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> eric cantor announcing his resignation as majority leader effective july 31. there'll be an election june 19 covering this. us, why did the majority leader make this announcement so shortly after his defeat? >> the jockeying to replace and had begun within hours of his loss on tuesday night.

there was a feeling of let's not drag this out. let's move on wakeling. -- quickly. they knew he would be stepping down after november since he would not be coming back to congress. i think there was a desire to move onto a new leadership team. there was a surprise on how quickly the election is going to be held. in just a week. there is a fear among some of the republicans that a drawnout election into july would allow outside conservative groups to try to muscle in and influence the outcome. they wanted to get the leadership team in place of they could move on and focus attention back on their agenda. >> but was the reaction of conference members you talk to after this briefing? >> we have seen members grim face throughout the day. everybody is in shock over this unprecedented defeat of a sitting majority leader.

at the briefing, people described it as sad and upbeat. an upbeated to strike note. he quoted a holocaust survivor who he had spoken to recently, saying that missouri is a choice that you make -- misery is a choice that you make. speaker boehner of course is a much more emotional man. it is no surprise to learn from lawmakers that he wept a bit during the closed-door meeting. >> during eric cantor's news conference he put his weight and backing behind kevin mccarthy to be the next majority leader. what is the chance for president of mccarthy? >> mccarthy certainly goes in as the favorite since he has been preparing for this for some time. if and when speaker boehner

retired, there would be an opening. he has built up the relationships and helped out members over the years. he has a lot of support. but, there is a desire among conservatives to have one of their own, someone from a red state. the entire leadership team represent states that barack obama won in the last two elections. we saw pete sessions of texas announce early that he is going to challenge mccarthy. we haven't heard definitively from another texan. mccarthy would be benefited by this past election. he is the one who has done the most to prepare for a leadership . >> the latest article, cantor upbeat on sitting down. what are his plans? >> he did not say. he has not had much time to think about that.

beindicated he is going to around in political life. he wants to continue to fight for conservative principles and policies and candidates. he made no mention of whether he would seek a comeback in electric -- in elected office. he is only 51 years old. au can never rule out comeback bid. we have seen it from politicians who've been felled by much worse scandals. here,t did the dual loss and stepping down as majority leader, what did that mean for other house republicans candidates? the reminder that all politics

is local, whether it is immigration reform or whether it is just eric cantor not sending enough to his district, were walkingbers around almost as if somebody had died. somebody whoe when is young passes away. you think about your own mortality. members were thinking about their own political mortality in the wake of this loss. >> read more at thehill.com. thank you for joining us. on the next washington welchl, congressman peter on the democratic legislative agenda. and tony perkins. eastern onive 7:00 c-span. defense secretary chuck hagel went to capitol hill yesterday to talk about the deal to release five guantanamo bay

prisoners in exchange for bowe bergdahl. members of the house armed services minute he -- committee questioned him about how it was negotiated. is 3.5 hours. >> this meeting will come to order.

at the start of this hearing i am pleased to welcome members of the public to have such an interest in these proceedings. we intend to conduct this hearing in the orderly and efficient member -- matter to allow questions and our opportunity -- and our witnesses have an opportunity to be heard. i will not tolerate disturbances of these proceedings, including verbal distractions or holding signs. i thank you for your cooperation. i want to thank secretary hegel and mr. preston for testifying today on the may 31 transfer of five senior taliban detainees from the tension at guantanamo .ay to the government of qatar

the committee has begun an investigation into the administration's decision. it is . administration's decision. it's unprecedented negotiations with terrorists, the national security implications of releasing these dangerous individuals from u.s. custody, and the violation of national security law. we hope for and expect the department's full cooperation. let me be clear up front on the focus of today's hearing. it is not my intention to dive into the circumstances of the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl from his base in 2009. there will be a time and a process for that. i also do not intend to use this hearing to weigh the merits of returning an american soldier to the united states. everyone who wears the uniform should be returned home. however, the detainee transfer

raises numerous national security policy and legal questions. the explanations we received from the white house officials at a housewide briefing earlier this week were misleading, and at times blatantly false. this transfer sets a dangerous precedent in negotiating with terrorists. it reverses long-standing u.s. policy and could incentivize other terrorist organizations, including al qaeda, to increase their use of kidnappings of u.s. personnel. it increases risk to our military and civilian personnel serving in afghanistan and elsewhere. as the president, yourself, and other administration officials have acknowledged, these five terrorists still pose a threat to americans, and afghans alike. and in one year they will be free to return to afghanistan, or anywhere else. what's more, although there will be fewer u.s. personnel in afghanistan in 2015, the return

of these five taliban leaders directly threatens the gains of our men and women who have fought and died -- the gains that our american women have fought and died for. the transfer is a clear violation of section 1035 of the national defense authorization act of 2014. there is no compelling reason why the department could not provide a notification to congress 30 days before the transfer. especially when it has complied with the notification requirement for all previous gitmo detainee transfers since enactment of the law. the statute is more than a notification. it requires detailed national security information, including detailed consideration of risk, and risk mitigation. that the congress and american people would expect any administration to consider before a decision is made to transfer gitmo detainees. it was designed and approved by a bipartisan majority in

congress, due to real concerns the dangerous terrorists were being released in a manner that allowed them to return to the battlefield. we're also seeing the consequences of the president's hasty afghanistan withdrawal strategy. afghanistan is at a critical juncture. at the same time we're focused on the first democratic transition of government, and supporting security and stability within the country. this negotiation has legitimized the taliban. the organization that safeguarded the 9/11 al qaeda perpetrators and ruled afghanistan through atrocities. lastly, this transfer sets dangerous precedent for how the president intends to clear out gitmo. the remaining detainees, by the obama administration's own analysis, include the most dangerous against u.s. forces and national security interests. in the president's rush to close gitmo, are other deals in the

works to release these dangerous individuals? mr. secretary, i don't envy the position you have been put in. we understand the responsibility you bear for signing these transfer agreements. but we're also aware of the immense pressure the white house has put on you to transfer these detainees so it can claim victory for closing gitmo. nevertheless, we expect the department to abide by the law and to provide its candid assessment of national security impacts of the president's decisions. this is a bipartisan committee. last month we passed our authorization act out of committee unanimously. and off the floor with well over 300 votes. that kind of bipartisanship is based on trust. members on this committee trust each other to live up to our word, and when we work with the department, and the white house, to pass legislation, the president will sign, we have to trust that he will follow those laws. the president has broken a

bipartisan law and put our troops at greater risk. and i'm eager to find out why. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. thank you to our witnesses for being here. i think this is a very appropriate issue for congress to exercise over sight on and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered and i'm pleased the administration's here today to attempt to answer those questions. i also want to agree up front with the chairman that one thing we shouldn't talk about today is the cirques of sergeant bergdahl's -- sorry, mr. bergdahl's capture. i'm happy about that. i regrettably at the briefing we had on monday that issue did come up. there simply is no proof, no evidence, i think the way mr. bergdahl has been slaernded has been scandalous. you know, and i hope we'll take a step back and do what admiral winifield said we'll get him home, get him healthy and figure out what happened and due process will be exercised. that should not be discussed today.

what should be discussed are the circumstances of this deal. and i think the chairman raised a number of appropriate questions, and i have enormous sympathy for the president and for you, mr. secretary, over a very difficult decision that had to be made here in terms of figuring out whether or not this was an exchange that was in the best interests of the united states. ultimately, i will tell you, i think it was. we do our level best to bring our service men and women home if we possibly can. not under any circumstances. the issue was raised, you know, would we have traded khalid shaikh mohammed for him. absolutely not. totally different situation. but when you're talking about these five members of the taliban, it is a different equation. and that really raises the issues that the chairman came up with. what -- who were we negotiating with? he says we were negotiating with terrorists. but sergeant bergdahl was captured on the battlefield, in a war zone. the taliban were, until just a few months before that, the legitimate government of afghanistan.

the current afghan government has said over and over again that they want to negotiate with the taliban. any sensible person who looks at the situation in afghanistan right now understands that there is no ultimate peaceful solution if at some point you don't negotiate with some of the taliban. which ones? we don't know. so to simply dismiss this as one terrorist group in negotiating with terrorists i think totally misstates the situation. this was on the battlefield, in a war zone, a soldier who was captured by a group of people that were the legitimate government of afghanistan mere months before. i don't know the full implications of that. and i completely agree with the chairman that we need to be very, very careful about setting any precedent that we would negotiate with terrorists. but i think this raises an entirely different set of questions that need to be answered and addressed and i would be very interested, secretary hagel, in your viewpoint on that. hat does that mean going forward? but understand the idea that

under no circumstances will we negotiate with the taliban is one that has been rejected by virtually everyone. we, the afghan government, if we're going to get any sort of peaceful solution in afghanistan, are going to have to negotiate with at least some elements of the taliban. which ones? we don't know. but that has certainly been the position of the afghan government, so this is an entirely different situation than saying we simply negotiated with terrorists. the second troubling question this raises, is the situation in guantanamo. and i will disagree with the chairman on one key point. the president is not pursuing this out of some naked political goal. he wants to close guantanamo just because politically he'd like to. that's not the situation. we have over 150 people held in guantanamo, many of them in very murky status. is it the plan of the united states of america to hold these people forever, without charge, and without trial? what would that do to our values, to precedents that we've

set in a different way if we do that? now there's no easy way out of this. but to simply dismiss it and say, any effort to try to close guantanamo is purely political overlooks the fact that we're in a very difficult situation. in large part because a lot of these people were captured in the first place without a clear understanding of how or why, without a plan to try them, and now we have them. and it is not the united states of america that i believe in that says look, we're just going to grab people and hold them forever without charge, without trial, without process. how are we going to handle that? one of the interesting questions that's raised that has been -- it has been argued that these five that were captured would have to have been released at the end of hostilities with afghanistan. it's not my understanding that that's actually the status that we've given them. they are not being treated clearly as prisoners of war. in fact i believe the phrase was unlawful enemy combatants has been the phrase that has been used of them. so if they weren't being held as prisoners of war, is it the

administration's position that at the end of our full involvement in afghanistan, we would have to release them? i don't believe that it is. that's been alluded to. that really needs to be clarified. first of all, with regard to these five. but second of all, how many more inmates are there in afghanistan that might be put into that category? that at the end of 2014 we would feel like we would have to release. again, it's my understanding that it's none of them. that we didn't put them in that prisoner of war category where they would have to be released at the end of hostilities. but the category they are in is very murky and very confusing and something we have to answer if we're going to live up to our own constitutional values. now the final issue that i think is worth exploring and where i am in more substantial agreement with the chairman is on the congressional consultation issue. and there's two pieces to this. first of all, it is very important, i believe, for the white house to engage with congress, just as a way for us to work together to advance the right policies. to consult us on key issues. and i think it is wrong that months before -- well, it's

wrong that when you knew that you were thinking about doing this deal you didn't take the top leadership in congress and talk about it. now, i know the concern, the concern was that it would have been leaked. but as has been mentioned, congress has been trusted with many, many other things, including the location of osama bin laden, and not leaked it. i think that type of consultation would have helped the process, not hurt it. and the second piece that i'm concerned about is the 30-day requirement. now i know the president put a signing statement when he signed the law that had that 30-day requirement in it, saying that he was concerned about the constitutionality about it. but the law is the law. the way you challenge constitutionality is you go to court. and you figure out whether or not the courts say it's constitutional or not. and until the courts rule on that, it is the law. when president bush was in the white house, he had gosh, hundreds of signing statements. and there was, i believe, a correct amount of outrage amongst many that those signing statements were put out there as a way to simply avoid the law.

was it right for president bush to do it, it's not right for president obama to do it, so i would be very keerious to understand the argument for why that 30-day requirement wasn't in place and again i'll come back to the fact that there was no reason that 30 days notice couldn't have been given to the leadership of congress. we can, in fact, keep a secret. or i would say we're no worse at it than the administration if you go back through history in terms of how things get out. so i think better consultation with congress is something we will definitely need going forward. with that i look forward to your testimony. i thank the chairman for this hearing. >> i ask unanimous consent that noncommittee members if any be allowed to participate in today's hearing. after all committee members have had an opportunity to ask questions. is there objection? without objection, noncommittee members will be recognized at the appropriate time. mr. secretary, the time is yours. >> mr. chairman. i thank you, ranking member

smith, thank you. and to the members of this committee, i appreciate an opportunity to discuss the recovery of sergeant bowe bergdahl, and the transfer of five detainees from guantanamo bay to qatar. and i appreciate having the department of defense's general counsel steve preston here with me this morning. mr. preston was one of our negotiators throughout this process in qatar and signed on behalf of the united states the memorandum of understanding between the governments of qatar and the united states. also, here representing the joint chiefs of staff, sitting behind me, is brigadier general pat white, who was the director of the joint staffs pakistan, afghanistan coordination cell. general white helped coordinate theburg dal recovery on behalf of the chairman through the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey. the vice president of the joint chiefs admiral winnefeld who the

chairman has noted will join us later this morning in the classified closed portion of the hearing. and as you know, general dempsey and admiral winnefeld played critical roles in the feetings at the national security council leading up to sergeant bergdahl's release, and supported the decision to move forward with this prisoner exchange. in my statement today, i will address the issues of chairman mckeon and mr. smith, the issues they raised when the chairman asked me to testify. and explain why it was so urgent to pursue sergeant bergdahl's release. why we decided to move forward with the detainee transfer. and why it was fully consistent with u.s. law, our nation's interests, and our military's core values. mr. chairman, members of this committee, i want to make one fundamental point. i would never sign any document

or make any agreement, agree to any decision, that i did not feel was in the best interest of this country. nor would the president of the united states. who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team. i recognize that the speed with which we moved in this case has caused great frustration. legitimate questions, and concern. we could have done a better job. could have done a better job of keeping you informed. but i urge you to remember two things. this was an extraordinary situation. first, we weren't certain that we would transfer those detainees out of guantanamo until we had sergeant bergdahl in hand. and second, we had sergeant bergdahl in hand only a few hours after making the final arrangements.

there are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange, and congress obviously has an important constitutional role and right and responsibility to play in all of our military and intelligence matters. as a former member, mr. chairman, of the senate select committee on intelligence, and the council on foreign relations i appreciate the vital role congress plays in our national security. and i will present to this committee within the limits of an open, unclassified hearing, and in more detail in the classified hearing, everything i can to answer your questions and assure you this committee, the american people, that this prisoner exchange was done legally, it was substantial mitigation of risk, to our country, and in the national interests. of this country. let's start with sergeant bergdahl's status as a member of the united states army. he was held captive by the

taliban in the haqqani network for almost five years. he was officially listed as missing/captured. no charges were ever brought against sergeant bergdahl, and there are no charges pending now. our entire national security apparatus, the military, the intelligence community and the state department pursued every avenue to recover sergeant bergdahl just as the american people and this congress and the congresses before you expected us to do. in fact, this committee, this committee knows there were a number of congressional resolutions introduced and referred to this committee directing the president of the united states to do everything he could to get sergeant bergdahl released from captivity. we never stopped trying to get him back. as the congress knows that. because he is a soldier in the united states army. questions about sergeant

bergdahl's capture are as mr. smith noted and you mr. chairman are separate from our effort to recover him. because we do whatever it takes to recover any and every u.s. service member held in captivity. this pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and our military. as former central commander marine general jim matis recently put it bottom line is quote the bottom line is we don't leave people behind. that is the beginning and that is the end of what we stand for. we keep faith with the guys who sign on, and that is all there is to it. end of quote. as for the circumstances surrounding his captivity, as secretary of the army mchugh and army chief of staff odierno will review later, and they've said, clearly, last week, that the army will review, they will review this exchange, circumstance, captivity of sergea sergeant bergdahl in a

comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with sergeant bergdahl, and i think need not remind anyone on this committee, like any american sergeant bergdahl has rights. and his conduct will be judged on the facts, not politically hearsay, posturing, charges, or innuendo. we do owe that to any american, and especially those who are members of our military wand their families. like most americans i've been offended and disappointed in how the bergdahl family's been treated by some in this country. no family deserves this. i hope there will be some sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue, and how it relates to the bergdahl family. in 2011, the obama administration conducted talks with the taliban on a detainee exchange involving the same five taliban detainees that were ultimately transferred after the release of sergeant bergdahl.

2011. these talks, which congress was briefed on, some of you in this room were in those briefings, i understand, which congress was briefed on in november of 2011, and in january of 2012, were broken off by the taliban in march of 2012. we have not had direct talks with the taliban since this time. in september of 2013, the government of qatar offered to serve as an intermediary, and in november of last year, we requested that the taliban provide a new proof of life video of sergeant bergdahl. in january of this year, we received that video, and it was disturbing. some of you may have seen the video. it showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. our entire intelligence community carefully analyzed every part of it.

and concluded that sergeant bergdahl's health was poor, and possibly declining. this gave us growing urgency to act. in april of this year, after briefly suspending engagement with us, the taliban again signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. at that point we intensified our discussions with the qatar government about security assistances and assurances. particularly security assurances. on may 12th, we signed a memoranda of understanding with qatar detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken, and enforced, and enforced by them if any taliban detainees were transferred to their custody. steve preston, who as i noted earlier, signed that memoranda of understanding on behalf of the united states government, and was included in those negotiations.

included in this mou were specific risk mitigation measures, and commitments from the government of qatar, like travel restrictions, monitoring, information sharing, and limitations on activities, as well as other significant measures, which we will detail in the closed portion of this hearing. they were described, as you know, mr. chairman, in the classified documentation and notification letter i sent to this committee last week. that memoranda of understanding has been sent to the congress, to the leadership, to the committees, and every member of congress has an opportunity to review that memoranda of understanding in a closed setting. u.s. officials received a warning. we received a warning from the qatari intermediaries that as we proceeded, time was not on our side.

and we'll go into more detail in a classified hearing on those warnings. this indicated that the risk to the sergeant bergdahl's safety were growing. we moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out that exchange. that exchange of five detainees. and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of may 27th. following three days of intensive talks. that same day president obama received a personal commitment and a personal telephone call from the emir of qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements and the final decision was made to move forward with that exchange on that day. as the opportunity to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release became clear, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay or any leaks could derail

the deal and further endanger sergeant bergdahl. we were told by the qataris that a leak, any kind of leak, would end the negotiation for bergdahl's release. we also knew that he would be extremely vulnerable during any movement and our military personnel conducting the handoff would be exposed to the possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory that we did not control. and we'd been given no information on where the handoff would occur. for all these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently, and quietly. we believe this exchange was our last, best opportunity to free him. after the exchange was set in motion, only 96 hours passed before sergeant bergdahl was in our hands.

throughout this period there was great uncertainty. great uncertainty about whether the deal would go forward. we did not know the general area of the handoff until 24 hours before. we did not know the precise location until one hour before. and we did not know until the moment sergeant bergdahl was handed over safely to u.s. special operations forces, that the taliban would hold up their end of the deal. so it wasn't until we recovered sergeant bergdahl on may 31st that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five guantanamo detainees. the president's decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees was a tough call. i supported it. i stand by it. as secretary of defense i have the authority and the responsibility, as has been noted here, to determine whether

detainees, any detainees, but these specific detainees at guantanamo bay, can be transferred to the custody of another country. i take that responsibility, mr. chairman, members of this committee, damn seriously. damn seriously. as i do any responsibility i have in this job. neither i nor any member of the president's national security council are under any illusions about these five detainees. they were members of the taliban. which controlled much of afghanistan's prior, all the territory to america's invasion and overthrow of that regime. they were enemy belligerents detained under the law of war, and taken to guantanamo in late 2001 and 2002. they've been in the u.s. kid toddy at zbaun mow since then, 12, 13 years, but they have not been implicated in any attacks against the united states, and we had no basis to prosecute

them in a federal court or military commission. it was appropriate to continue to consider them for an exchange, as we had been over the last few years, as congress had been told that we were. and if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. there's also always always some risk associated with the transfer of detainees from guantanamo. this is not a risk-free business. we get that. the u.s. government has transferred 620 detainees. 620 detainees from guantanamo since may, 2002. with 532 transfers occurring during the bush administration. and 88 transfers occurring during the obama administration. in the case of these five detainees the security measures

qatar put in place led me as secretary of defense to determine consistent with the national defense authorization act that the risk they posed to the united states, our citizens and our interests, were substantially mitigated. i consulted with all of the members of the president's national security team and asked them, as they reviewed all the details, they reviewed the draft of my notification letter, the specific line by line, word by word details of that letter, i asked for their complete reviews, the risks associated, and i asked either concur or object to the transfer. the secretary of state, the attorney general, secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all supported this transfer. all put their names on it.

there was complete unanimity on this decision, mr. chairman. the president and i would not have moved forward unless we in the national interests and the best traditions of our country. our operation to save sergeant bergdahl's and the u.s. laws and national security interests in at least five ways. first, we complied with the national defense authorization act of 2014 by determining that the risk of detainees posed to the united states, american citizens, and our interests was substantially mitigated. and that the transfer was in the national security interest of the united states. second, we fulfilled our commitment to recover all military personnel held captive. third, we followed the precedent of past wartime prisoner exchanges. a practice in our country that dates back to the revolutionary war.

and has occurred in most wars that we fought. fourth, because sergeant bergdahl was a detained combatant, being held by an enemy force, and not a hostage, it was fully consistent with our long-standing policy not to offer concessions to hostage takers. the taliban is our enemy. and we are engaged in an armed conflict with them. fifth, we did what was consistent with previous congressional briefings this administration has provided, as i've already noted in late 2011 and early 2012. reflecting our intent to conduct a transfer of this nature with these particular five individuals. mr. chairman, i fully understand and appreciate the concerns, the questions about our decision to transfer these five detainees to qatar without providing 30 days notice to congress. but under these exceptional

circumstances, a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an american service member held captive and in danger for almost five years, the national security team and the president of the united states agreed that we needed to act swiftly. we were mindful that this was not simply a detainee transfer. but a military operation with very high and complicated risks and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize. both for the sake of sergeant bergdahl, and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return. in consultation with the department of justice, the administration concluded that the transfer of the five could lawfully proceed. the options available to us to recover sergeant bergdahl were very few. and far from perfect. but they often are in wartime, mr. chairman.

and especially in a complicated war like we've been fighting in afghanistan for 13 years. wars are messy. and they're full of imperfect choices. i saw this firsthand during my service in vietnam in 1968. 1968 this committee may recall we sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead in one year. i see it as the secretary of defense. a few of you on this committee, a few of you on this committee have experienced war, and you've seen it up close. you know there's always suffering in war. there's no glory in war. war is always about human beings. it's not about machines. war is a dirty business. and we don't like to deal with those realities. but realities, they are. and we must deal with them. those of us charged with protecting the national security interests of this country are

called upon every day to make the hard, tough, imperfect, and sometimes unpleasant choices based on the best information we have, and within the limits of our laws. and always based on america's interests. war, every part of war, like prisoner exchanges, is not some abstraction or theoretical exercise. the hard choices and options don't fit neatly into clearly defined instructions in how-to manuals. all of these decisions are part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war. in the decision to rescue sergeant bergdahl we complied with the law. and we did what we believed was in the best interest of our country, our military, and sergea sergeant bergdahl. the president has constitutional responsibilities, and constitutional authorities to protect american citizens, and members of our armed forces. that's what he did. america does not leave its soldiers behind. we made the right decision. and we did it for the right

reasons. to bring home one of our own people. as all of you know i value the defense department's partnership, partnership with this congress, and the trust we've developed over the years. i know that trust has been broken. i know you have questions about that. but i'll tell you something else, i have always been straightforward, completely transparent about this committee since i've been secretary of defense. i will continue to do that. i will do that always with all my relationships, associations and responsibilities to the congress. that's what i always demanded, mr. chairman, of any administration when i was a member of the united states senate. i've been on your side of this equation. i understand it. that's what i've done this

morning with the statement i've made and i made the decision i did. and i've explained that in general terms. the circumstances surrounding my decisions were imperfect. and these decisions that have to lead to some kind of judgment always are. the president is in the same position. but you have to make a choice. you have to make a decision. the day after the bergdahl operation, at bagram air base in afghanistan, i met with a team of special operators that recovered sergeant bergdahl. they are the best of the best. people who didn't hesitate to put themselves at incredible personal risk to recover one of their own. and i know we all thank them. i know this committee thanks them. and we appreciate everything that they do. and we thank all of our men and women in afghanistan who make the difficult sacrifices every

day for this country. earlier this week we were reminded of the heavy costs of war. the heavy costs of war when we lost five american servicemen in afghanistan. i know our thoughts and our prayers are with their families. we're grateful for their service. but we're grateful for the service of all our men and women in uniform around the world. as i conclude mr. chairman i want to again thank this committee. this committee for what you do every day to support our men and women around the world. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to make this statement, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much mr. secretary. in your statement, you indicated that the president had made the final decision on this operation. i appreciate your clarifying that. we had a briefing just a couple of days ago, and the last

question asked by a member of congress of the briefers was who made the final decision, and one of the briefers stated that you had made the final decision. i think all of us understand how this place works. and a decision of this nature is always made by the commander in chief. and i think that you clarified that, and i appreciate that. mr. secretary, one of the things that has bothered me the most about this is the fact that we did pass a law last year that stated that congress should be notified 30 days before any transfer of detainees from guantanamo. just a little history. we were briefed, some of us, some of the leadership, on this committee and other pertinent committees in congress, starting in november