staff, i attended and mr. thornberry attended that briefing. and i asked the question if at any time since the january discussion started you had talked about the 30-day requirement and nobody said at that time that there ever was a discussion about it. >> i don't recall that exchange, sir, but i can assure you that the 30-day requirement was discussed. the part of the lawyers in this and my part was in working with my counterpart at the nsc to solicit the department of justice's guidance. that guidance was then provided to the decision-makers who made the judgment about whether the circumstances would -- the particular circumstances in this case would permit the 30-day -- the formal 30-day notice. >> this is one of the things

that's bothered me about reports we hear in the press and some of the briefings that we've had over a period of time, that we get different answers from one time to another. we'll go back and check our notes from that meeting, but when i asked that specific question, it was -- nobody responded, and you were in that -- you were one of the briefers. >> i frankly don't know whether the question was directed to me or whether it was properly understood. i can tell you -- >> i asked all of the briefers, i said at any time in any of these meetings did you discuss the law that pertained to the 30-day notice to congress. and -- >> i can only say in no uncertain terms that we set in motion an effort to get authoritative guidance from the department of justice on the legal issues and that that guidance was part of and provided to decision-makers who

addressed what the administration was going to do vis-a-vis congressional notification. >> so you had time to discuss this with the department of justice. you probably could have used that same time to talk to congress about it. >> i can just speak for my part of it, which is we foresaw the possibility that these issues would arise and wanted to have legal -- >> what i was trying to determine when i asked the question last week was if you had just forgotten the law or if you had purposely decided not to address it, it sounds like what you're saying right now is that you thought about it, you were aware of it and you had a discussion about it and decided that the law didn't apply. >> we certainly thought about it. we did not ignore the law and we solicited legal guidance on the

legal issues that would apply in application in this extraordinary set of circumstances in which the president was seeking to repatriate a service member who was in captivity and in peril. whether this these extraordinary circumstances -- >> so if the circumstances are extraordinary, you don't have to follow the law? >> no. the way i would put it is that the constitution vests in the president certain authorities and responsibilities to include -- >> and as it does to the congress. >> it does indeed, protecting americans abroad and protecting service members in particular. and to the extent that the application of the 30-day notice in this application would interfere with or undermine the president's efforts to seek to secure the recovery of this service member, then in the exercise of his constitutional authority the statutory notice -- >> that was your interpretation.

i think somebody talked earlier about the interpretation should be made by the courts not by a couple of attorneys talking about the law. >> the courts certainly have a role but the president has a responsibility to execute his authority and he seeks the counsel of the department of justice. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your strong efforts to uncover the truth of what's occurring before us today. mr. secretary, i appreciate your being here today. yesterday i had the opportunity to stand in front of polling locations during a primary where hundreds of concerned citizens of both political parties expressed to me their shock and outrage that the president would release five terrorists who they believe will have a background of having been facilitators of the attacks of september the 11th, 2001. we know the taliban allowed al

qaeda to operate from safe havens in afghanistan to attack the united states. and for the top leadership of this terrorist regime, for the president to release them is just incredible to the people i represent because they know that the terrorists have a goal in mind, and the goal is very clear, death to america, death to israel. and the thought that people like this would be released was just inconceivable to the people that i spoke with yesterday. additionally, putting this in the context of this week, al qaeda or taliban terrorists have attacked karachi twice. dozens of citizens have been murdered by the taliban. it's not just americans at risk. additionally in baghdad, there have been car bombings with, again, dozens of people being murdered. this week we had the circumstance of mosul possibly coming under al qaeda control,

creating a safe haven which will affect american families in the homeland because the safe havens will be used for attacks on america. the safe havens are growing across north africa, middle east, central asia. i believe it's dangerous to provide more terrorist leadership as this is occurring. the president was wrong. last year he announced that terrorism was being diminished around the world. in fact it's growing and it's growing exponentially. and with that in mind, on june the 5th, "time" magazine of on "time" magazine reported an interview that they reported with the taliban commander in afghanistan where the reporter asked him if this deal inspired he and others to capture other american military personnel. the taliban commander replied definitely. it is better to kidnap one person like bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless

people, end of quote. the quote continued. it encouraged our people. now we will work hard to capture such an important bird. do you recognize there is an increased risk to our service members because of this outrageous deal? >> first, let me note, again, taliban policy for 12 years is to do exactly what the representative told "time" magazine. that is to capture american service men. that is not new. i go back again to the factors that we all looked at to be able to substantially mitigate the risk to this country to our allies to our interests. and we believe the analysis of the intelligence community, all who had a role in this, that we could substantially mitigate the risks through the 12-month

memorandum of understanding that qatar provided the enforcement of the security there. the other follow on dynamics and threats and realities which we factored in we believed were mitigated enough. these are five individuals who have been off the battlefield for 12, 13 years. doesn't mean they won't go back. this is a different world, different world for us, as well. so i would give you those answers. again, i know you don't agree with them. i also remind you there are risks to all of this. this is not a perfect situation. i know that. we all know that. this is why we spend an awful lot of time. >> we should look at what our enemies say. in the augusta chronicle reported one of the five leading infamous for exceptional cruelty

according to military commander his return is like pouring 10,000 taliban fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. mr. secretary, our country is at risk. you identified the homeland as if it is far away. it is not. the safe havens are being created to attack the american people here and actions should be taken. and that would not include releasing terrorist leaders. thank you. >> congressman, i can assure you there is nobody more aware of that than this secretary of defense. >> please act that way, my goodness. >> thank you. ms. songas. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome secretary hagel and mr. preston. it is great to have you here today. i think the issues we have been talking about today really do merit the serious discussion that we have been having here. i would like to begin by reiterating the point that we as a nation have a solemn

responsibility to bring home every serviceman or woman who volunteers to put on the uniform and places themselves in harm's way on behalf of the values our nation holds dear and on behalf of each and everyone of us it is the abiding promise we make and is the underlying motivator in the actions our president has taken with your guidance and advice and consent. i would briefly like to address the issue of notice that has received so much discussion. it is clear that as we look at the actions that took place in 2011, 2012 in the context of a possible reconciliation process there was indeed generalized notice. i think members of congress knew that there might be five taliban who would be exchanged for sergeant bergdahl in an effort to bring him home. so on that front i don't think there is deep surprise that this

would possibly take place. but a lot of the concern has been on the issue of specific notice. and i think it troubles all of us given the 2014 ndaa. on the other hand i think the exigent circumstances you described, quick turn of events that necessitated quick action made the 30-day notice a tough one. i think a little heads up, a couple of hours call to leaders of congress might have served you all very well. that being said i also note that what you have said that was not a simple transfer but a military action and conducted very well by our military put in harm's way. i commend the soldiers for pulling this off as they did without incident. i would actually like to address another aspect of section 1035 of the ndaa and that is to put

in place mitigating circumstances that do have a level of comfort that these released detainees will be held as promised and not quickly put back in the battle place. can you talk about that a bit? i know some of it you will revisit or visit in a classified setting. i would like to hear as much as you can talk about in this context. >> congress woman, thank you. as you note i mentioned about four general areas that are included in the specifics of the memorandum of understanding on the enforcement commitments made by the government of qatar personally made in a telephone conversation with president obama. i can't get into the specifics until we get into the closed session on the real most

significant parts of that m.o.u. assurance which we all assessed. every agency in the government who signed off on this decision all agree that those were strong enforcement mechanisms that would give us some significant reassurance that those five individuals would be kept in qatar and all the other assurances as to their activity. and, again, we can go into the specifics of that. >> the track record hasn't been great. so what do you have up your sleeve that you feel comfortable will allow you to carefully monitor the situation? >> recognizing what you just said, the dimensions now that we are looking at that have changed a bit in qatar. you have a new leader in qatar, a new emir over the last year.

we have a significant united states force presence in qatar. many of you have visited our base there. we have thousands of people. we have some significant relationship with the government of qatar. they have had difficulties with their neighbors. i think the geopolitical arrangements that they would like to see change i can't speak for them but you asked me some of my thoughts. i think put a different face on this, as well. and there are some other assurances. and i don't want to address here in an open session. suffice it to say they are all strong enough to get the commitments that we each individually, each leader of each agency came to the same conclusions as ultimately did the president that it, in fact, was in the interest of our

country and, in fact, did substantially mitigate the risks. >> thank you. this is a legitimate and real concern i know of my constituents. >> well, it is a concern of ours. >> and the memo of understanding will be made available. it got to us last evening. it will be made available to all members of the committee in the proper setting. mr. turner. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, we have had very important issues to discuss here. obviously one the issue of notice to the congress and was this a good idea and the policy of whether or not this is a shift from the policy of not negotiating with terrorists. we had a briefing on monday department of state, mr. work, department of defense. joint chiefs. i asked them this question. can you cite any precedent for

this nature of a swap where we have swapped with a nonnation state. you were asked this question by a ranking member and you cited the exchange of securing the release of helicopter pilot michael durant. you used the words it was a functionally exchanged. now, the five briefers, of course, when i asked them that question said there was no precedent and we had not done exchange with nonsovereign states within the last 40 years. i want to point out to you that when helicopter pilot michael durant was released in somalia it was said he was released as a gesture of good will. president clinton immediately called a press conference stating we did not make deals for the release. he said we have strong resolve

and show we are willing resort the peace process. he said it will be a u.n. decision but clinton said there were no deals to secure his release. you have said that mr. durant's release was the result of a functional exchange. and the five briefers that we had on monday said there was no precedent of a nonsovereign state. sir i like to retract your statements? >> sir, i certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the former president lied. i don't think i need to recant my statement. i was trying to be responsive. >> i only have five minutes. in your response i would like in writing to provide additional information as to the exchange that occurred to secure mr. dur ant because there is no public

evidence or discussion of anything in that nature. there are disclaimers including by the president of the united states, mr. clinton. it doesn't appear this would be precedent for this taliban swap. i would like you to explain that so we can release it to the public. >> it certainly wouldn't be on all fours. it would be an example of -- >> you cited that in this hearing. i would like the details in that exchange in writing provided to the committee. >> i understand. >> thank you. the confusion in this is because of the issue of the policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists. you said that you don't want to talk about who held mr. bergdahl unless we are in classified session. i can understand your preference to being that.

however, the hnetwork says they were holding them. it is reported that it was haqqani. the state department lists the haqqani network as an international terrorist organization. mr. secretary, do you disagree with the state department's designation of the haqqani network as terrorist organization? >> no. i acknowledged that this morning. >> do you agree that we do not negotiate with terrorists? >> i agree. >> you would please explain to me how we could have been in negotiation that included the haqqani network because they were involved in the capture and release of sergeant bergdahl and it not conflict with our policy that we not negotiate with terrorists? >> we dealt directly with the

government of qatar. >> that is our foot note now. >> now the new policy of this administration is we don't negotiate with terrorists directly? >> congressman, you didn't let me finish. >> that is what you said. >> i did say that but you cut me off before i could say the other part that we were dealing with the taliban. now, i actually dealt with this question earlier this morning about the haqqani network holding at -- >> you deferred and said we would talk in classified session. it is well known. >> i said the haqqani network was holding him in different times. >> as long as it is not direct that we will negotiate with terrorists in this administration. >> we didn't negotiate with terrorists, mr. congressman. mr. cooper. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to our distinguished witnesses. i wish that this committee would

not be so prosecutorial in its tone. i don't know if my friend on the other side of the aisle is already running for majority leader or not. it sounds like the tone is way too political. i think for the audience back home people need to understand that our secretary of defense is a distinguished former united states senator of the republican party with a distinguished war record in vietnam. so hopefully this committee will not cast aspersions on anyone and certainly not impugn on their patriotism. the chairman tried to narrow the scope of the testimony with his opening statement and i think he wanted to confine it to the 30-day notice requirement that the congress perhaps should have received on this prisoner transfer. i think that if the committee hearing were, in fact, narrowed to that point it would not be the near media circus that it

has become. not only would many members of the epress not have shown up but many members of this committee might not have shown up. let's try to focus on the substance. let's try to be fair to each other. hopefully bipartisan because as the chairman noted this committee is known for fairness. that's the way our nation should approach its national defense, in unity there is strength. so hopefully my colleagues will focus on what is really important here. there has been a lot of discussion about precedent. no one wants to set a bad precedent for us, the greatest country in the history of the world. i think if there is a precedential effect of this decision it is the vitally important principle that so many have reiterated, leave no man

behind. that's the message of this possibly politicly unpopular decision. that is leave no man behind. we can investigate what he did or didn't do once he is safely back in our custody and once he has been presumed innocent and the regular course of justice can take its place. but i'm shocked, really, that this has become such a political football and such unfairness as the secretary of defense rightfully pointed out not only towards our man in uniform but his family. i don't know the particulars but justice will take its course. that is the nature of this country and our constitutional guarantees. as the secretary of defense pointed out not only is this person a u.s. citizen but a person who volunteered to wear the uniform. he should be given the benefit of the doubt. let justice take its course.

i would like to ask mr. preston in a much less prosecutorial tone, do you think the 30-day notice requirement for congress that was in the last ndaa was, in fact, a constitutional provision? does the commander in chief, any commander in chief of any party have the right to take action when time requires it to protect the life of a serviceman, to perhaps circumvent 30-day notice requirements to this body? it was my impression that mr. reid said he had been notified. i don't know the extent of the notification. >> thank you for the question. sir, we believe the provision was constitutional. the question is the constitutional implications and the application in the particular circumstances here. and the administration determined that it was necessary

to forego under the consolation of circumstances presented in this situation in which the president was seeking to free a service member in captivity and peril. and the circumstances can be described in terms of the f fragility in the negotiations and delays and leaks in impact of premature ending of negotiation, the circumstance of fleeing opportunity to effect the exchange. from the time it was decided to do the exchange to the execution was somewhere along 96 hours. the potential harm to sergeant bergdahl if the deal became public, all of this in the context and back drop of uncertainty as to his physical condition and realization that this might be our last best chance to get him. it was in that circumstance, mr.

chairman if i can finish, it was in that circumstance that with the deal coming together and the prospect of having a decision to transfer the concern was delaying at that point for 30 days to effect notice of the transfer would scuttle the deal and could possibly further endanger sergeant bergdahl. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i see my time has expired. you know, we can hammer on this and hammer on it, but the point is those negotiations started last january. you had talked to us about it in november of '11. neither of you were in your jobs here. so when i say you i mean the department had talked to us in november of 2011. when the negotiations blew up in 2012 you came to us and said if we start negotiations again we will come back to you. that didn't happen.

and so i understand when you are down to the final days and you are planning the operation itself and putting those things together, yeah, that is real crunch time when you are down to a few days. but that was the end of may. what about january, february, march, april? there was plenty of time. you had time to talk to the department of justice. 80 or 90 people were informed and knew about this. congress was not informed. i guess the reason i think they weren't informed is because when you originally brought it up back in november of '11 and january, february of '12 because you had pushback from congress. they didn't want those five guys released. so this time you just decided we will by pass congress and deal with it after. that's the problem i have with all of this. >> if i can address that with

reference to the 30-day notice requirement specifically, that is key to a transfer. and in this instance there was no decision to transfer and could be no decision to transfer -- >> when you started the negotiations in january and february as a result of the tape that you saw of sergeant bergdahl you entered into a negotiation just as you had been a few years before. it was transferring five detainees for the one prisoner or hostage or whatever we are going to call him. that didn't change. all that changed was you got closer to an actual deal. >> we did not have a decision to transfer and could not have a decision to transfer until we had security assurances in place which was may 12. and until there was an agreement to exchange which was may 27. >> why didn you talk to us abou

it in november of '11. >> i understand there is a serious issue about the relationship and communication. what i am trying to focus on is what would trigger the statutory 30-day notice rierm. that would be a transfer. we did not have a decision to transfer until that last week. >> you don't need an exact date of transfer to begin the 30 days notice? >> it is notice of the transfer. that means there has to have been a decision to transfer. >> we are probably not going to agree on this. mr. klein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you gentlemen for being here. i was somewhat amused by the

gentleman from tennessee's comments. amused because i remember when the gentleman would hold up a newspaper headline and address representatives of a republican administration and what one could see as a prosecute orial manner. nevertheless, let me ask you a question that we have been around all morning. who specifically selected the particular detainees that were transferred? >> the five detainees that were transferred have been the subject of conversation and negotiation over a period of time. they just didn't appear on anybody's scope. these are individuals that we have been talking about, as the chairman noted and i mentioned, i wasn't there at the time in

2011 and 2012. but i am aware that members that were briefed on these five individuals, members of the congress disagreed with these five individuals. where those five individuals initially came from i don't know the history to that. >> i thank you for that. somebody made the decision that these five were going to transferred at the end. there could have been discussions going on for months. somebody made that decision. who was it in may? >> the decision to transfer, if that is your question -- >> to transfer specifically these five? >> those decisions were made ultimately by the president but we all in the national security council agreed once we had all the assurances in place and things that steve preston has talked about if that is your question. >> i guess we are going to talk past each other here because at

some point somebody decided it would be specifically these five and i am trying to figure out who that was. you said in response or in a conversation with ms. davis earlier they wanted all the taliban detainees. who is they? >> the taliban. >> the taliban. >> at one point in these discussions before my time -- >> you can see why -- i hope you can see why there is a lot of confusion here because you have been very careful to say on more than one occasion that you were not negotiating with terrorists. you said you were not negotiating with the taliban because you were negotiating with the emir of qatar. we have had some pretty tortuous legal responses to questions we are trying to get at and trying to figure out the basics here. mr. preston is a lawyer. he has come back in response to the chairman and others, well,

we didn't know because we didn't have a decision date. i think that was the answer right here. therefore 30 days didn't start because we specifically hadn't made a decision. mr. secretary, i'm sorry but these responses are very, very tortuous as we are trying to weave around here legalities. and i understand there are a lot of lawyers and probably a lot here on the committee. fundamentally i am just trying to understand who made the decision, when it was made to do the transfer and who made the decision on the notification and why. we are just walking around here. i will just close because my time is rapidly running out, by saying that this confusion leads to this belief that was expressed by mr. turner and others that, in fact, the united states did set a precedent, did

break the policy of negotiating with terrorists because despite the maneuvering of the little pieces about i can't really say if it is haqqani who is a designated terrorist network or really taliban but not taliban because we are talking to qatar. i think that adds to the confusion and the perception. i yield back mr. chairman. >> the congress man has 20 seconds. -- >> yes, there was confusion. i said that this was imperfect, imprecise. we didn't even engage here in qatar until april. yes, just exactly what general council has said, sure there was confusion. there was imprecision. we didn't know from day to day

what we had or didn't have. questions here about the taliban not having a good track record on keeping their word. they are in and out. we had assurances. absolutely. absolutely there was. a lot of confusion. through that we had to stay focused on what the objective was. and that was getting an american p.o.w. back with the reassurances that we needed to be able to say it would substantially mitigate the risks and it was in the interest of our country. that was the objective and that is what we tried to do. i know there are differences and questions. i get it. we did get him back and we don't have anymore p.o.w.s. >> mr. smith? >> mr. chairman, if i could just on the point of who we negotiated with. originally this was worked through the qataris and they

were talking to the taliban. there is no evidence that we negotiated with the haqqani network. it was always the taliban. it was the taliban reaching out. it is pretty straightforward that the people we were negotiating with were the taliban. who held, when, where, wherever? the people we were talking to about the release and the people who apparently controlled the release is the former taliban government and now the insurgents. is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> my only gloss on that would be my understanding is in the very early going there were direct talks between the u.s. government and taliban and later became indirect with the qataris. there was never a direct time we were negotiating with the haqqani. there were no demands or

concessions made by or to the haqqanis as far as i am aware of. >> i was going to use an example earlier but mr. ronion had to leave. professional football player. i probably had an agent. the agent probably negotiated for him. the owner probably has somebody, general manager that negotiates for him. but at the end of the day it's the football team negotiating with the player even though the player and the football team aren't there. so is the haqqani part of the taliban? what is the relationship between the haqqani and the taliban? >> to tell you the truth you are out of my area. this is something the intelligence community folks could address better.

>> i'm not an attorney. i'm just asking the question. mr. johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you, mr. chairman, for your effort to set the scope and the tone of this hearing which i think most members have adhered to. and i want to thank you for that. and i think this is the tone that we should have in this hearing because this is a legitimate issue of legislative oversight. and secretary hagel i am apologetic to you for not having been able to repeat your first answer to the question about whether or not we negotiated with terrorists. it's clear that we did not do so. and i want to ask you some

questions, mr. preston. you are the attorney so you are familiar with the constitution and the separation of powers and the power of the executive inso far as being the commander in chief. and those duties and obligations are not specifically set forth in the constitution or limited in any way. would you agree with me that section 1035 of the defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014 restricted the transfer of gitmo detainees by the commander in chief without giving 30 days notice? would you agree that that

restriction is on the power of the commander in chief? >> i would agree with that, sir. >> and would you also agree that the purpose of that provision was to, in effect, require congressional approval before the president could utilize the power of commander in chief to transfer a detainee without giving 30 days notice to congress? would you agree? >> i understand that to be the general intent. >> would you further agree with the signing statement that president obama issued in signing the national defense authorization act that this was

an unnecessary limitation or unwarranted limitation. let me put it like that. not unnecessary but unwarranted limitation? finally the constitutional separation of powers principle. >> i understand that the signing statement served for the president to make clear his view that these restrictions in application could impinge upon his constitutional authority. >> isn't it a fact that section 1035 of the national defense authorization act does not make any provisions for a time sensitive prisoner exchange negotiation of the sort that we have with mr. bergdahl?

would you agree that the ndaa does not provide for that circumstance? >> not by its expressed terms, yes, i agree. >> what would be the effect on the nation, on the institution of the presidency if the president were to comply with this undue restriction and seek 30 day approval from congress before dealing with an emergent situation? >> well, let me first point out that the executive has consistently adhered to these provisions in all previous transfers. i wouldn't want this transfer in connection with the bergdahl

exchange to be interpreted as an exception to the statute whenever there are emergent situations. you can imagine any number of emergent situations. this was driven by the particular collection of circumstances involved here in which the concern was that if in the process of finalizing this deal and executing on the exchange there had to be a delay for formal notice that it would stand to scuttle the deal and quite possibly endanger the individual. >> thank you, sir. i yield back. just for the record it probably doesn't matter whether we would agree that that is a restriction or unnecessary restriction. it was the law. it was passed out of this committee. it was passed on the floor of the house. it was passed on the senate and

the house in a final form and signed by the president. granted, he did write a note that he didn't think it was constitutional. until the supreme court acts and says it is not constitutional, it is, as mr. smith said earlier, the law. mr. franks. thank you mr. chairman and thank both of you for being here. mr. secretary i believe as i know you do that one of america's greatest and most sacred treasures is the men and women in uniform who risk and sometimes sacrifice their lives for the cause of american freedom. and further that as a nation we do owe it to each one of them to carry them from the battlefield and back to their home and families. it is also my belief that these heroes down to the last person would reject gaining their release through an unprecedented negotiation with the jihaddist

terrorists that would categorically break american law that would return five high value terrorists that would diminish the security of the united states and it would place a bounty on all of our men and women in uniform and ultimately essentially weaken america's hold on this priceless freedom for which generations have fought and died. mr. secretary, i also agree with you that everyone of our military personnel should know that if they are captured by the enemy that we will come and get them. but that isn't what happened here. what happened here is that the obama administration has telegraphed to terrorists the world over that all they have to do is kidnap or capture an american soldier or citizen and the united states will capitulate and free some of their most dangerous terrorist leaders. for the last five years the american people and terrorists

themselves have watched in astonishment and disbelief as this administration has handed back blood bought gains to our enemies. i believe the result is somewhere in this world in this moment that there are terrorists watching this hearing in complete jubilation. so my question is, do you believe that this, what i believe to be an illegal trade, is going to intensify the terrorist policy that you mentioned and their efforts to kidnap american citizens and personnel of our military forces across the world that would afford them the obvious leverage that they have gained here in this case? >> congressman, as i said before our military is always at risk especially in war. afghanistan is one such place. those men and women are at risk and have been. >> have this intensified the terrorist efforts and their policy?

>> if i believed that was the case i would never sign off on this. as i said earlier the taliban's position on trying to capture american service men and women had been clear for 12 years. >> certainly this deal has encouraged them to focus on it more. >> i don't know how that would be after 12 years -- >> the fact that they have the entire american people focused on this debate that they brought us into this chaos would tell me there is great value in doing that. >> one issue that has not been mentioned here this morning is a tremendous progress the afghan government has made in particularly to the military. i think that is rather measurable looking at the elections. we have another election, the final next week. they are doing all of the combat missions themselves. yes, they have a way to go. the reason i mention that,

congressman, is because this is a different world than it was five years ago in afghanistan or three years ago. and the increased strength of the afghan army and all of the institutions of afghanistan is a significant part of this. if i believe that it was going to increase the risk to our soldiers i would have never, ever signed off on this. >> i don't doubt your sincerity in that regard. i do profoundly in all respect doubt your judgment in that front. >> that is fair. >> let me finally ask you can you clarify for us what is the connection or the relationship between the haqqani network and the taliban? >> i don't know exactly the relationship. by the way, i said in my statement the haqqani network was holding bergdahl. we know that there is an affiliation, an association.

we don't know if they subcontracted to the haqqanis to hold bergdahl. >> that would be important for the record. >> we don't know all of the pieces. >> i'm out of time, mr. secretary. thank you for your answers. mr. chairman, i do believe this effort has ultimately weakened america's freedom in the world. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thank you for the balanced way that you have handled this hearing. let me say at the outset to my colleagues. i was somewhat stunned by one of the earlier questioners about bowe bergdahl. and i would just ask us to think for a moment how we would be responding if bowe bergdahl was

our son. i fear for the future of this country with the kind of rhetoric that is being spewed in this very room. to secretary hagel, thank you for your very persuasive presentation this morning and for your leadership. i would like to ask kind of a fundamental question. in hind sight which is always 20/20, do you think it would have been appropriate for you to have informed the leadership of both houses? >> well, congresswoman, in hind sight i suppose each of us in our lives in every decision we made could we have done it better, i mention that in my

opening statement, yes we could have done this better. but, i also said that we thought we had one shot here. and we were told by people that we were engaged with, this gentleman right here was on the ground in qatar and can go into more of the details, that any risk of any leak in anything, any security operations break would jeopardize the deal. we didn't know what kind of health bergdahl was in, for sure. all we had was a six-month video. we did know that he had been transferred back and forth quite a bit. we were not sure where he was. five years in that captivity. i don't think anybody on this committee would think that was a walk in the park. we will find out more and more about it. we do have some intelligence that is clear on this on some of

the conditions he was held in. so you factor it all in and we were told that this may be your last shot at this. it was a judgment. that is right. could we have done it better? could we have done it smarter? i would just add this. does anybody on this committee really believe that i would want to come up to this committee, the president of the united states would want to take the criticism that he is taking on this issue intentionally if there wasn't a good reason? >> let's move on, thank you. >> come on. you can question our judgment on it. that is fair, but we did this because we were concerned enough with the fleeting opportunity we might miss it and we just didn't want to risk any further security operations. >> in open hearing, can you provide us with how the five detainees were held? were they subject to water

boarding, torture or anything else at gitmo? >> let me ask our council on this because i am not aware of torture. i don't know. i hadn't been around for the 12 years they were down there. i'm not aware of any situation that would put them through any of that but i don't know. >> i have not reviewed for that purpose? >> can you review that? >> in terms of the move the first reports they would be housed in some location and then word came out that they were going to be able to freely move throughout qatar. if they are freely moving throughout qatar, do they have ankle bracelets? how are we in a position to know

precisely where they are at every moment? >> we will get into this and will answer the question. this needs to be in a classified setting. short answer is we have the kind of assurances we think are meaningful and enforceable. we believe the government will enforce them. we need to take it up in a classified hearing. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> thank you. secretary hagel, trust is a fragile concept. you said towards the end of your conversation that you broke trust with the committee and with congress. i would agree with that. >> i did not say i broke trust. >> we can get the transcript out and read it back to you. over and over and over you and mr. preston both have said we don't trust congress. we don't trust congress. it's insulting.

it is disrespectful. and i get it. and so our system of trying to deal with you and deal with us demands trust. you made a comment that you would never sign anything that wasn't in the national interest of our country. i have to trust you based on your word. i cannot do that. you put a rift in the system. it is offensive that you -- [ inaudible ] mr. hagel it is your responsibility to notify congress, not the president's responsibility. you are to make the notification. did you personally decide on your own to not do that? >> i decided in consultation with the inner agency. the president was aware of it. >> it was your call to not notify congress. >> i notified congress but i notified congress when -- >> not even within the spirit of

the 30 days. even if you would have done it may 12 when the m.o.u. was signed you would not hear this pushback from us. >> i explained why the notification was handled the way it was. i never said i don't trust congress. that is your words. >> yes you did over and over. >> i never said i don't trust congress. you ought to check your transcript. >> were any of the detainees aware of the negotiation if their release? >> let me ask the general council. i don't know. >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> if we were to get visitor logs and flight manifests from gitmo it would not show these guys were conferred with as -- >> i'm sure with the investigation we are going to turn over everything we have. >> we need to be able to trust you. >> i get that. >> we don't. with respect to -- >> i never said i don't trust

the congress. those are your words. >> your actions said -- your actions demonstrate, mr. secretary, that you do not trust congress. >> now it is my actions. >> and the ranking member something like this. your actions say you don't trust congress. i get it. with respect to the release of these five and the overall impact it has on the ability of the taliban to work their mischief in afghanistan would you agree or disagree that a weakened taliban would be better for afghanistan than a stronger taliban? >> yes. >> would you agree that the return of these five individuals once they serve their half way house nonsense in qatar and get back to afghanistan will strengthen the taliban and their efforts to do whatever it is they do in afghanistan? >> maybe. do you know that? >> maybe? >> we don't know. >> in the open press that that

is in fact what -- >> what is a fact? somebody is projecting 12 months down the road and that is a fact. >> you think the 12 months in this half way house is going to cure them of their hatred of america and their ability to want to not take back -- >> that is not what i said and that is not what we meant. taking as fact something that hasn't happened and won't happen for 12 months is a bit of a -- >> had broad parameters that said here is what we will do. classified at this point but there was a long list. the phrase we won't -- nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. somewhere between january 12 and may 27 of 2014 that changed the deal that you are trying to cling to that you notified congress that this was going on. when did that change occur? were you a part of that decision? because the way i understand it

all we got was sergeant bergdahl as important and wonderful as that is, that is it. we got no other agreements in those broad conversations that you had with us in january of 2012. none of that appears to be a part of that deal. when do we abandon those criteria and why weren't we notified that the change was made? >> when did we abandon that criteria? i can't tell you that. it is open session. >> we will take it up at closed session. i can't answer a question that you can't give me the question to. >> i will remember that next time we try -- never mind. >> mr. barber. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary and mr. preston for being here today. last week during our recess i was home at district like i think all of us were. i met with many veterans.

i was in sierra vista. i had about 70 people come to my congressman in your corner event. over and over again virtually everyone was a veteran and said what is going on? we agree we should never leave one of our armed forces behind. i agree with that, too. they wanted me to know if it was appropriate that we released these detainees from guantanamo in exchange for sergeant bergdahl. they asked couldn't we have gotten a better deal? you say this transfer was a tough deal. another was a deputy minister of defense for the taliban. and yet you also stated that

these detainees were appropriate in exchange because they had not been implicated in any attacks against united states and that you have no basis -- we have no basis to prosecute them in federal court. i find these statements very difficult to accept, mr. secretary, given the status that these particular individuals had before they were captured. it is hard to believe that these individuals in these positions within the taliban government had no role in attacks on americans. so could you, mr. secretary, speak to this issue and explain to the people i represent and this committee and those of us who are all across this country asking these questions, why you believe the release of these men was appropriate and it does not pose a threat to our national security? >> congressman, i think i have answered the question and i think i addressed as you quoted from my testimony. let me start again. we recognize, as i said in my testimony and i think the

answers i have given this morning, that there are risks. there are always risks. there are going to be risks in a deal like this. we had to factor in every circumstance that we could factor in. our intelligence, where these guys came from, what facts we had on them, as you noted from my testimony, how big a risk would they be? how substantial could we mitigate those risks for our country, for our allies, for our citizens, our service members. we think we have done that. we think we have done it through a 12-month pretty tight enforcement of memorandum of understanding. we know that after 12 months that is another deal. but factoring everything in we all felt, everyone was secure on this in the national security council signing off on this number one and number two

uniformed military, general dempsey that, in fact, we had substantially mitigated the risks to this country. and i believe that. i would not have signed it. the president wouldn't have signed it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me move to a second aspect of the issue. i understand this is hard to predict. we have not been able to secure a bilateral security agreement with the afghan government. president karzai is on again off again. i was in afghanistan a couple of months ago. i was wanting to find out how our troops were reacting to this situation and particularly to the attacks, verbal attacks that president karzai has made on our troops and our country. we have an election coming up in just a few days. but my question is, do you have any sense of how the release of these detainees will impact on

the ability for us to secure a bilateral security agreement with the new administration, whoever that might be? clearly we have seen a lot of anger in afghanistan over the release and we wonder, obviously, how that might effect future agreements with the new afghan president. >> congressman, as you know, the two finalists one will presumably be the next president of afghanistan. they have both said and both reaffirmed that they, if elected president, one of the first things they would do is sign the bilateral security agreement. i have seen nothing to change that. we have heard nothing to change that. i believe that commitment is firm from either one of them, from both of them and they have made that commitment. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. hagel, prisoner exchanges in the past for instance after the korean war and vietnam war were done after a peace deal had been hammered out. the president recently said about the bergdahl deal this is what happens at the end of wars. how is what is happening in afghanistan the end of a car other than the president has made a unilateral decision to remove our forces next year no matter what the facts on the ground are? in other words, have we negotiated some type of peace with the taliban making this an end to the war? >> well, first part of the question, congressman, i don't think anyone would have wanted us to wait if we had a chance to get bergdahl until the so-called war is over. we had an opportunity to get him. it was a fleeting opportunity. we did it. >> so the president was wrong when he said this is what happens at the end of wars? >> that is the first part -- if

you will let me finish. this decision the president made, this wasn't a new decision. you go back to the lisbon nato conference of 2010 it was established that combat missions would come to an end at the end of 2014 for the united states. the only questions that remained up until about a month ago is how many is how many forces would the president decide to leave behind -- >> secretary -- >> so that's not new. wasn't any arbitrary -- >> the administration's position isn't new, but i don't understand how his unilateral decisions bring in the taliban and make them a negotiating partner. >> well, i'm not sure he said that about what you just said.

i'm not sure what you mean. >> after vietnam, after the korean war, prisoner exchanges were done when a peace agreement was signed. this is unprecedented to have a release like this before there's even a peace agreement. all that's happened is the president said we're withdrawing forces, and the taliban are not a party to the negotiation -- the afghan government was not brought in on this, were they? >> this was a prisoner exchange, and, again, i don't think the american people would have wanted us to wait. if we had a chance to get our p.o.w. -- >> but you keep saying that this is a prisoner release. it's not a deal with terrorists releasing a hostage. this is a negotiated prisoner release with a legitimate type of government. i don't see where the taliban -- >> i'm not sure i get your point

though, congressman. >> you're saying this was not a deal with terrorists, is that correct? >> that's correcright. >> the alternative is this is a deal with a legitimate government of some kind with a legitimate military that we're in the process of hammering out a peace agreement. none of those things are happening. >> the president didn't say we're in the process of hammering out a peace agreement. this was a prisoner exchange. i mentioned this morning in one -- in answer to one of the questions about you go back to the 2012, 2011 days, there was the larger scope of reference of reconciliation and maybe the taliban and afghan government getting to a peace agreement. that's what we were talking about in 2011-2012. taliban shut all that off, so this was a straight let's get our prisoners prisoner exchange. >> was the afghan government

brought in the loop on this decision during the negotiation? >> no. >> but you said earlier that this is an attempt to, among other things, reconcile the afghan government and the taliban. >> no, i didn't say that. >> you didn't say that? >> i said the opposite. i said this was not. i said in 2011 and 2012 there was a broad framework of reconciliation. that was 2011 and 2012. that has changed. that totally changed. >> i'm just trying to understand how this is not a deal with terrorists holding a hostage. you cast this as a legitimate prisoner swap, and yet they are a terrorist organization. we're not -- >> the taliban have never been designated by us as a terrorist organization. >> the treasury department says the pakistan taliban is a terrorist organization. >> the pakistan taliban. >> and the state department says the haqqani network -- >> we're talking about the

afghani taliban. these are bad guys. there's no question that they're bad guys. of course they are. and i laid that out and i have said that today, but, again, i go back to all the considerations that we put into play that substantially mitigate the risk to this country to get our p.o.w. back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> miss shay-porter. >> thank you. secretary hagel, thank you very much for being here and obviously it's a challenging circumstance and i want to thank you for your service and say that you probably more than most people in this room know what it's like to be in combat and could imagine what it feels like to be left behind, so i want to thank you for that very principled stand because we do have that policy and we tell our men and women that we will not leave them behind. so i want to thank you for that. i do have some concerns though,

and one of the concerns is obviously the trade, and i'm particularly concerned about why five? is that the minimum number that they would accept because looking at that, we got one, they got five, and we know that they are bad guys, like you said. and so i have some concerns about the number to begin with. then i'm also -- would like to comment, and i'll let you wrap up with this, but i'd like to comment about the reintegration process. one of my colleagues suggested that there was something going on that you didn't just quickly bring him back, but i do remember watching our p.o.w.s from vietnam coming back, and we learned a lot of lessons about dropping them right into american culture after having been isolated for so many years. and so my understanding is there's a reintegration process and there's three stages and we have to allow the former prisoner to work his or her way through these stages.

so i would like you to address that and also why five, and then i'd like to put my comment in that i do believe that congress should have been notified. i probably split the difference here between my colleagues. i understand why you might not tell all of congress because of the sensitivity and the timing and the risk, but certainly i do believe the leadership of congress should have been told. so anything else you'd like to add to that, i still have three minutes and please tell me why there's five, a little bit about the reintegration process, and any other comments you'd like to add. thank you. >> congresswoman, thank you. on the reintegration process, i think everyone agrees that the principal focus now on sergeant bergdahl should be his health. maybe someone disagrees with that, i don't know. but for us, for the military, that is.

getting him healthy enough, his body, mind, spirit, and that's the point of a reintegration process. you know, your point about what we've learned since p.o.w.s came back from vietnam is an important point. we've learned a lot, our doctors have, our health care specialists have. everybody is different to start with. every situation is different to start with. so that's the focus. let's get him healthy, mind, body, spirit, then we'll get on with the rest of it. the united states armed forces and his family agrees with this incidentally. we let the medical professionals make those calls. >> let me add, this doesn't mean that he won't have to answer questions. there are important questions that need to be answered. we're just waiting for him to be well enough. >> that's right. as i said in my testimony, both the secretary of the army and the chief of staff of the army has already said there will be a

comprehensive review -- >> and there should be. >> -- of all the circumstances surrounding his disappearance. >> and i thank you for that. now why five? >> i'll get to that. one other point on that, i remind you again, you'll have an opportunity to look at the so-called form 15-6 which does give a review at the time of his disappearance. it was signed off i believe in august of 2009. that's up here at the committee. now, the five. okay. general counsel has asked -- >> i just -- before the secretary addresses -- >> i'm sorry, we won't be able to because my time is running out. i really would like the answer from the secretary but i hope we can talk about it -- >> i give shorter answers. >> thanks. >> why five? well, first, i have addressed this in other questions about how did this all come about? it originally was six and we went back and forth over the years. they wanted all the taliban

prisoners, the taliban did, wanted all in guantanamo and so on, and it settled at around five. the sixth detainee died. so that's part of it, but i think there's a bigger issue here, too. the american people, the american society, our armed forces, have never seen life exchange of just one for one. we put a value on our american lives as the most important thing. not that other societies don't, i can't speak for any other society and i wouldn't try, but our society is every human being is important. so why wasn't it 20, why wasn't it 3? the five started to be what the taliban insisted on. they wanted more, had been six, then they wanted everything. so i don't think there's any magic to it. that's the way it developed,

but, again, we don't put a one for one deal on our -- >> well, thank you. i just want to reiterate that you can trust congress to handle this. >> time has expired. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, thank you so much for joining us today. secretary hagel, let me go to the administration's own guantanamo task force report where they reviewed the files of these five detainees that were transferred and unanimously recommended in 2010 they continue to be held by the united states based on the specifics of their cases. the task force also said that it was conceivable with adequate security measures the five could be sent elsewhere eventually. in light of those recommendations that these detainees continue to be kept and that recommendation taking place when it did, can you tell us what extraordinary security

measures can qatar offer today to allow for this transfer? >> well, again, that's the essence of much of our mitigating dimension, why we signed off on the deal. those assurances the first year. congressman, again, i will say when we close this place down and go into the classified, we'll go into every one of those specifics, but i would tell you this, you may have already read the mou which we sent up here yesterday, and we'll be glad to take you down into the subparagraph six of each one of those to get to your question. but to go beyond my testimony here, i don't want to do that and if it's okay, we'll wait. >> let me go back historically then and look at the history of qatar and what they've done in receiving detainees. as you know, the first transfer to qatar was in 2008, and was

that one considered a successful test case? >> i believe, and i just asked our general counsel if we just had one transfer. is that right? to qatar? >> to my knowledge. >> so we've had one. i don't know all the history of that transfer, although my understanding is it wasn't particularly good generally. so what's changed? again, i addressed this here this morning. first of all, you have a new em emir. we've got more presence, assets there. their relationship with the area and with us is significantly changing. now, are these absolute guarantees? no. i mean, there are very few absolute guarantees in life, as we all know. but i think a number of things have changed enough, significantly changed, to be able to have confidence in the enforcement that the emir told the president of the united states that he would personally

see to that as well as the government. and if you follow down, as you did, through your reading of those mou requirements and then we'll get into details, we felt confident that that mou covered enough, but the enforcement was good enough. >> you did acknowledge there was an additional risk there in qatar taking those detainees, especially based on their past performance, so are you comfortable with that risk and does this willingness for the u.s. to accept that risk, does that now set the stage for the u.s. transferring detainees to other nations who have not met obligations under previous agreements in accepting these detainees from guantanamo? >> well, you said the right word, risk, and that is the essence of what we're always dealing with here and the analysis that we made, the decision that i made, as well as

the national security council and ultimately the president, again i say we believed that all of this together could substantially mitigate the risk. >> let me ask this. there is some concern, too, that of knows considerations given for the qatari government and what they will do to keep up with these detainees, is there an opportunity for these detainees to go to the qatari legal system to have these travel restrikctions lifted so under legal means they could have free rein to travel throughout qatar or elsewhere? >> i'll ask the general counsel. he signed the mou and i will ask him to handle that in particular, that question, because he negotiated it and signed it. thank you. >> i think the question is best answered in the closed session, if you would indulge us in that respect. >> let me close by asking this

then. what happens to these detainees after a year? >> as has been said, the restrictions of the mou are for a one-year period. that includes the restriction on their travel outside of qatar. so after one year -- >> so after one year, no restrictions. >> except under circumstances that we would discuss in the closed -- >> gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, mr. secretary and mr. preston. i appreciate very much your service. mr. secretary, you said in your testimony that this was a -- well, first of all, let me just say that i think a lot of people have had very emotional reactions to this and what they've seen about this with incomplete information, and i certainly think that's understandable, but these are

difficult circumstances to judge, and we as elected officials and you as appointed officials have to put aside our emotions and political expediency in order to best use our professional judgment, and obviously what will be said in secret session also pertains to this. but what i'm concerned about now is the law and the notification of congress. and you said in your testimony, i believe you actually used the word unique circuits. i'm a little concerned that this isn't unique. it might be rare, but not all that unique. do you believe that congress hadn't thought this was a sort of issue that could come up when they passed the law? should we amend this law if, indeed, these kind of, you know, very rapidly evolving situations occur where you would want to have the authority to do a prisoner transfer? first the secretary and then -- either one of you.

>> well, here is the way i would answer your question. first, it was an extraordinary situation, and maybe everyone doesn't agree with that. i absolutely believe it. the president believed it, national security council leaders believed it. for the reasons we've discussed here the last three hours and actually more. so i think we're on pretty solid ground in saying that this was an extraordinary situation. i think it also gets into the constitutional issues that we have discussed here this morning. the responsibilities of the president given to him through article 2 of the constitution, what are his authorities under that article. it doesn't discount what the congress passes as laws. by the way, this is not the

first challenge to a law by a president, as has been noted here this morning. president bush, george w. bush, probably signed as many signing statements as anybody. executive/legislative differences exist probably since the beginning of the republic, so i answer your question that way, too, and then if you want to hear from the general counsel. >> well, actually let me just stick with it. i think you answered it fine, mr. secretary. i am concerned though that there was an opportunity to notify the congress. i have heard some reports that 80 or 90 people in our administration knew. i don't know if you can confirm that or not. but sort of the answer that goes back to 2011, 2012, i agree with the chairman on that. that was a different set of circumstances. it was also, by the way, a different congress. i wasn't in that congress.

and it does concern me that that many people knew and there wasn't some sort of a notification of congress. particularly given that obviously the qatari officials knew. how are we to avoid the perception that this administration trusts qatari officials more than it trusts leaders in congress? >> well, you may see it that way as a congressman, and i wouldn't question your perspective, but i would just say this. the qataris had to be a part of it because they were a part of it. they were doing the deal. we signed the memorandum of understanding with them. there would have been no prisoner exchange without the qataris. so not everybody, by the way, in the qatari government was aware of this. again, presston was there. i don't think it's a matter of we trust the qataris but we

don't trust our own congress. i have already addressed this, too, in my opening statement. could we have done it better, smarter? yes. >> yeah. i think my concern and i'm not sure if this would rest in your office or not, my concern is, okay, i understand the circumstances under which the department was not able to obey the letter of the law. my concern is whether the department even tried to obey the spirit of the law. certainly not informing myself, rank and file member, but at least the leadership of the relevant committees that this was happening. >> well, again, i'll say and i know members of this committee don't agree with this, but in explanation as to why we did what we did, and again i'll say one sentence, we were very, very concerned about the risk. we had a fleeting opportunity here. we were told there was a risk. the more people who knew about it, the more risk. i get that. i get why did you trust some in the white house and not here. i get all that, but your question, overall question about

who knew and who didn't, i don't know about the 80 or 90 number. i can tell you from my responsibility in dod, very, very few people knew about this at dod. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, good to see you. i guess you've said there were better ways to do this, there were more precise ways to do it. i guess my first question would be, is that because do d was not in charge of this the entire time? >> congressman hunter, i'm sorry, i just read a note. >> i would ask you to add 20 seconds back on. >> take it out of my time. i'm sorry. >> was dod in on this the whole time? you have said before this could have been done better and i'm guessing that means if you were doing this from the beginning, this prisoner exchange, it would have been done better. >> well, i appreciate the comment, but, yes, it was dod involved in this from the beginning? yes, we were.

>> let me interject there then. we talked in february and i said because the state department had this option on the table and they had preapproval from the executive to go ahead with this prisoner exchange, this was months ago, you appointed mr. lumps lumpkin as the osd representative to the bergdahl case. >> yes. >> which makes me think you weren't heavily vested in this from the very beginning but that you did get vested in it a few months ago. >> no, that's not true. you're right, let's pick up february. you're right, we had the conversation. you know you had written me about this. i did appoint lumpkin who was the guy who oversaw the whole operation, as you know from dod, mike lumpkin. congressman, this was so fast moving, everything you said is right. there was a break, and i have got the chronology right here -- >> i don't need that from you. what i'm asking is, did you have

other options you looked at for approval or at least consider, nonkinetic options. >> you mean dod? >> you, yes. >> no. this was the one -- >> this was the only option you considered? the only nonkinetic option you considered? >> we consider everything and we are, but where we were in the time frame you're talking about in the scope of the reality here, this was the one option that we were all working toward that looked like the best. that's what lumpkin -- that's why i appointed him to get into it. you're exactly right -- >> let me ask again, did you have other nonkinetic options that you looked at for approval? or at least consideration? >> not anything that was serious. we look at all kinds of things all the time -- >> let me ask then, so you didn't pass any other courses of action besides this one for the president's consideration from

the department of defense? >> if you're talking about this specific deal with qatar -- >> i'm talking about getting bergdahl back, just getting bergdahl back. >> no, this was the one on the table that was the most realistic, viable, and, no, we didn't present that i'm aware of anybody in dod present any other -- >> let me ask this thing. why would the president approve or you approve only one course of action after seeing now self-admittedly no other courses of action? i have never heard that where you only say this is the one thing that we've chosen to do and we're not going to consider any other courses of action besides this one, and that means that the president didn't even have any other options, nonkin nettedic options from the department of defense that you recommended to him because you just said you recommended no other options but this one. >> well, congressman, we weren't holding all the cards here. you know, if the taliban wasn't ready to engage -- >> forget about the taliban. i'm not asking that -- >> but they -- >> you have different courses of action. if i want to enter this room, i

can come in through that door, that door, or the door over there. what you're saying is you didn't look at any other doors accept that one. you didn't consider any other options besides this prisoner exchange, and you only recommended to the president this one pathway? to get bergdahl back. >> congressman, this was the only pathway that was emerging that was available. there was no other pathway unless you're aware of something -- >> i am aware actually, and these are not from special briefings so i can probably mention a few of them. you at dod, your department, working concurrent options with pakistan to get bergdahl's release. you had other options that we know that at least people in your department had looked at. we won't go into those nonkinetic options, but it just astounds me for something this large you wouldn't recommend to the president any other course of action but this one and that the president of the united states would not have looked at

other courses of action besides this one before he made the decision to approve this. >> well, two issues here. one is do we always look at other courses of action? yes, we do. second issue, recommending to the president. this was the most viable, best pathway we could find, we knew that was active. the taliban were coming back. the qataris were telling us they were coming back, so we pursued that as the most immediate, viable, and possible option we had to get him back. >> in closing, i would think there were better options and i think that the president should have been better briefed by folks in your department that knew what those options were, and i hope that the dod and mr. lumpkin takes a stronger role in trying to get the rest of the americans back that were forgotten via this exchange in afghanistan. i yield back. >> mrs. duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it's good to see you again and just want to say how great it is to see a member

of the nco corps, the backbone of our military at the head of the dod. i served in iraq with a vietnam veteran e-7 who went back over at 59 years old. didn't make it home and he probably is smiling and cussing at me right now and telling me i better treat you right. look, i think your background and the background of all of us who have worn a uniform and as you said been in combat informs how we feel about the release of sergeant bergdahl as well as how we feel about someone who abandons their post and exposes their buddies to attack by the enemy. however, it's never been the practice of the united states to leave one of our own behind on the battlefield regardless of the circumstances of their disappearance. we do everything we can to bring them home. you don't leave them to be dealt with by the enemy. it's not who we are as a country. it's not who we are as a military. now, that doesn't mean that there are not questions that need to be answered about the circumstances around his

departure from his post, and i would hope that the military will take appropriate action to review the circumstances again and i have full faith in the leadership of the united states army and the uniform code of military justice to conduct a thorough investigation and to carry out any justice that the result of a subsequent investigation may warrant. that said, i wanted to ask you two specific questions. first, are there any plans by the dod or the department of the army to go back and review the circumstances of his disappearance and then if it is found that he did abandon his post, so he did desert, there will be an investigation, perhaps prosecution? >> congresswoman, yes, and thank you for your service and to the other members of this committee who i didn't by name acknowledge, but i referenced as you noticed in my testimony, thank you for your service.

yes. as i noted in my testimony and a couple of the answers i've given this morning, secretary of the army, chief of staff of the army both indicated, did last week, that they intended a full comprehensive review of all the circumstances involved in the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl. the results of those reviews will determine if any action would be required based on conduct and based on the review. they feel strongly and i do, but i'm not going to get involved in trying to influence that. that's the united states army decision, as you know how this works. they are open to get the facts, and wherever the facts lead then, they'll get them and they will respond appropriately. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> you have to ask me. >> would the gentle lady yield, please? >> yes, i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you have a tremendous perspective as miss duckworth has alluded to with your background as a combat infantryman. now, i'm sure that you weighed every pro and con in these decision -- in this decision-making process, and your decision was made in the best interests of this nation based on the facts you had as a whole, i'm sure. and it's really unfortunate that the toughest decision that many of your critics have been making on this is as to whether or not they should run for re-election. now, have you received a single or heard a single sound

suggestion from any of these monday morning quarterbacks as to a better course of action that you might have taken in this decision? >> the coverage has been rather bare on that account. we have a lot of experts in this town especially, but as i said, and i appreciate your service, sir, i'm well aware of it, in this town it's pretty easy or anywhere else to give analysis usually uninformed and criticize every decision. that's okay. that's the role everybody has. the country is built that way. everybody's opinion matters and counts. everybody has one. but in the end, as i said in my testimony, some of us are dealing with the responsibilities of having to make the tough choices. you make them up here in your votes, and i make them. and that's the way it is, and

that will always be that way. so i just deal with it and i do the best i can and i do what i think is right for my country, and i don't have any problem sleeping. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. they have called the votes about six minutes left, but about 394 haven't voted yet. so i want to thank the secretary. we've gone over what we thought we would -- it would take, but it's a very important issue, and this is the largest committee in congress, and everybody wanted to have their questions answered. the secretary has agreed, we will take one more question, then we will break for votes. i would encourage all who have not had an opportunity to ask a question that want to return. the secretary said he will stay for that, and then we will reschedule at a later time the

closed session part. dr. fleming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, we've talked about this 30-day notice. yesterday the chairman told us that he received notification after sergeant bergdahl had actually been transferred. i'm sure his senate counterpart received that notice at the same time. it was really a notice after the fact, and i listened carefully through all the questions, all the legalese, the technical, the spin, everything. it's clear to me that really what happened here, and this goes back to the question from the previous gentleman as to what else could have been done, has there been any other offers. my understanding is that back in 2011 and in 2012 when this issue was first brought forward that secretary clinton opposed it

without additional measures and protections. and i believe also mr. clapper and others as well, congress on a bipartisan basis pushed back on this. and so it really suggests to me that when this erupted again this past january, that the president decided he didn't want to hear no. all he wanted to do is to move forward, get it done, and whatever thing he could do here in terms of lawyering or end runs around congress or whatever -- i mean, it's been reported by many different agencies that at least 90 people in the executive branch knew about this, but yet the chairman of house armed services did not know about it. so, i mean, isn't this really just an attempt by the president to do an end run around congress to not take no for an answer or not get some pushback and maybe a little bit of wisdom from people who have been around here a long time and have been

elected. >> congressman, the president of the united states, like every president of the united states, as you know, has not just constitutional responsibilities but moral responsibilities on behalf of every american, and his first responsibility is the security of this country, and i have never seen in the time i have known him, and i have known him since he's been in the senate and i have been in this job about 15 months, ever a time he flinched on that. you may disagree with decisions he's made but there was no political decision here. now, on clinton and clapper, the director of national intelligence has already made a statement on his agreement with this -- >> but he first opposed it, is my understanding. >> he did but he explained why he has changed his position.

>> but let me -- >> as did secretary clinton's situation was the same. it was a different world in 2011, 2012 for all -- >> all i'm saying is there's a benefit for more heads, more wisdom in this, and i think the president really didn't want to hear no. he wanted to do this no matter what. let's go to number two here. >> he wanted to make sure we could get our p.o.w. back but not no matter what. >> i understand. >> you all were driving this as the american people -- >> i didn't say no matter what. that wasn't my statement. >> as far as who had control of sergeant bergdahl, we keep hearing about the taliban, but the reports have all been it was the haqqani network. you yourself i think suggested that. we know the haqqani network is an international terrorist organization. we all agree with that. and so ultimately just because we have a surrogate, in this case qatar, who is going between who is acting as an agent, how is that not negotiating with

terrorists? >> well, first, let's look at the objective here. it's to get our prisoner of war back who was a prisoner of war. he was a prisoner -- >> i get that but, again, aren't we violating a commitment, a doctrine, that we've had for decades by -- >> no. >> -- doing that? >> no. >> how is that not negotiating with terrorists simply because we put someone in between, how is that any better than direct negotiations? >> we engaged with the government of qatar -- >> wouldn't the outcome be the same? >> the other end of it was the taliban, a combatant against us in war -- >> but still surrogate nonetheless. would the outcome have been any differently if we talked directly with the ha can ni -- >> you and i disagree on that. >> i don't think it would and i don't hear you saying it would be any different. but anyway -- >> you didn't hear me say what? >> i didn't hear you say it

would be any different. you're saying you didn't know and -- >> i didn't know what? what are you saying? >> that the outcome would be any different whether we talked -- >> i didn't say that. >> -- with haqqani network -- >> not at all. we were very clear who we were talking to and why and following the law. that's what i said in my testimony. i have said it all morning. >> okay. i yield back. thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. okay. we will recess for the two votes. i would encourage the members return as soon as possible so we can >> on the next " washington and familyer welch research council president tony perkins. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. after a defeat and his primary

election, house majority leader erik counter -- eric cantor announced he would resign his leadership post at the end of july. the congressman talk to congressional 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 anal sills.

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 -- the acronym means, taxed enough already. when the tea party first came about in 2009 i believe it was largely in reaction to the tremendous overreach on the part of the obama administration with stimulus, obamacare, concentrate in the house, and the country rose up and said enough is enough, so i do believe what we have in common as republicans is a tremendous amount of commitment to a better and

smaller government, greater opportunity and growth for everybody. the differences we may have our small and slight compared to the differences we have left. >> if you hold the elections june 19 and stepping down july 31, do you actually have a leader waiting that long or well that's only create more friction ? >> i think you will have to speak to the speaker about the timing of the leadership elections. i will say that we have a very busy floor. i have announced ever since the beginning of the year i'm a we have a lot on the floor. heavily involved with the committees and drafting legislation and making sure we can run the floor and bx the dishes in the legislative process. we look over to a very productive june and july.

>> what about personal analysis? did you look into the mere before you went to sleep last night and say how did i let this happen? >> know, because i do believe we did everything we could. i am very proud of my team on the ground in richmond for all they did. there was a tremendous outpouring of support on all sides. again, i just team up showed that short. -- just came up short. you will do think after congress? >> that is probably between my wife and me. i will look to see how i can best serve, how i can best be a part of what we have been about with the agenda called un-american that work. remember the premise, the notion that conservative solutions in personal responsibility, limited government, more liberty can produce the results and solve

somebody problems the american people have been facing in an obama economy under the obama administration. thank you all very much. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today on c-span, " washington journal" is next with your phone calls. then live coverage of the u.s. house. today tax bills and a measure to condemn the kidnapping of

nigerian schoolgirls. in 45 minutes, we will talk with congressman peter welch about the 2014 political campaign season and the democratic legislative agenda. also, tony perkins. >> wi-lan sent to serve out my term as a member of congress and the southern district of virginia, effective, i will be stepping leader. it is with great humility that i do so knowing the tremendous honor it has been to hold this position. ♪ good morning on this thursday, june 12. house majority leader eric cantor after a shocking primary loss on thursday announced he will step down as majority leader it will not be on the ballot in november. what does this loss mean for the party and the leadership in congress? republicans and tea party members