chicken or beef as the number one ingredient. the best treats come from the kitchen. developing now, a busy morning on capitol hill. this is a live look inside of the raburn hearing room where the house armed service committee is about to start a hearing on u.s. sergeant bowe bergdahl and his exchange for five detainees at guantanamo. chuck hagel will be the e ke ke witness and expect fireworks in the opening q and a. i'm chris jansing and we will get to that, but first a seismic shift on capitol hill this morning being felt. in the house of representatives in the republican party and frankly all across the country. americans waking up to the news that republican house majority leader eric cantor is out. that is a headline in his home district's paper in richmond, virginia. they probably thought they'd never print that. this is the first time in h

history that a majority leader has been ousted. we are going back to 1889 when the houposition was created. he was not just beaten by david brat, but he was trounced by 11 percentage points. a man with a sweeping interest is going to have an impact. and we will talk about the immigration reform and the minimum wage and chuck pushed him on the other issues as a sort of welcome to the big time. >> i thought that we were going the go through the aspect of celebratory aspect, but my mind is just -- overall policy questions i am happy to do them all, but i wanted to talk about the victory at hand and i wanted to thank everybody that worked so hard on my campaign. i'm happy to take policy issues at any time. >> dave brat's win shakes up the republican leadership and changing what gets done this year and in the future in washington. tea partiers are saying this is

rewriting the narrative and the establi establishment is back. and now back to the democratic chairman of the national campaign steve israel. good morning. >> good morning, chris. >> dave brat sounded as shocked adds everybody else with in the conversation with chuck todd in the last hour and you seem to be happy. what do you think? >> well, it is a 10.0 on the political richter scale and a stunning reminder to the american people of just how extreme and how far to the right and how far out of touch the republicans and the house of representatives have moved. when eric cantor who is the leader of the tea party in the house republican caucus is viewed as not ridgid enough, tht is not good enough, because congress is going to look for a mainstream agenda to strengthen the middle class, but a tea party chaotic house republican caucus and those who want to continue to focus on the solutions for the middle-class.

>> you have the talking points down and it did not take long for the campaign to fund raise off of the loss. last night, you sent out the e-mail with the blast, sign on and good-bye eric cantor and good riddance. to ensure that there would be a democrat on the ballot, your committee just monday suggested tram m -- tramle and most people were, who was this guy? >> well, it was a republican district the day eric cantor lost, and the day after. >> so is all lost? >> no, it is a 40% democratic performing district, and we are fight i fighting for every single district and every single candidate. we don't give up on any fight. so, we are going to treat this district -- >> i understand that, but you

have to figure out where the money is best spent, and that is your job. are you going to give him some money and send some national democrats there? >> well, this is a 10.0 on the richter scale, and there was nobody in washington who believed that eric cantor would lose this, and so he lost it. with we are doing what we should do and we are making a clear-eyed decision and assessing the strategic options today. >> and can we look at the big picture, because it was a week ago that conservative chris daniel forced thad cochran into a runoff in mississippi. this is certainly the tea party's line whether the demise was overstated, and what does this mean overall for what does and does not get done in congress? >> well, you know, chris a few weeks ago, speaker john boehner said that the republican party is the tea party, and the victory of mcdaniel, and the loss of eric cantor to a tea party extremist proves what he said. the republican party is the tea

party. i am concerned however going forward that this could do any willingness of the republicans to compromise. not that they had a willingness before, but this is not going to give them a dose of courage in trying to compromise on things like immigration reform. i hope that we can get a compromise on the immigration reform and the compromise on the many other issues that we have to pass, but this is making me much less optimistic than i would have been. the next five months is mayhem by the republican caucus and the leadership fights and pander ing to the base and political distractions which is not going the serve the american people well, but meanwhile, democrats will be focussed on the solution of the middle-class. >> and have you checked this morning, have you raised any money off of this? >> to be honest, i have not checked. >> steve israel will be checking at some point today, i am sure. >> thank you, chris. thank you. >> and we want you to know that we are keeping our eye on chuck hagel who was just seated and

his testimony will start in a few minutes, but meanwhile for the implications of the huge political upset, let me bring in mckay hopkins and jonathan capehart, and well, well, well, this is not what we expected to be talking about, and we were all up late last night, mckay. and you wrote this morning, glee, and ebullient is what you used, one tea partier used when he heard of eric cantor's loss and the exact opposite of john boehner. eric cantor and i have been through a lot, and he is a good friend and good leader and my thoughts are with diana and his kids tonight. >> and how did he go from the young gun to the apparent speakership to this? >> well, it is funny, because i talked to a bunch of the tea party leaders who were having a dinner party when whithey were

brent brazil's house, and they were caught flat footed, and none of the national tea party groups had put money into this, because they sassumed that cantr would cruise to victory and eventually become the speaker. but what we see is that eric n cantor did not spend a lot of time in the district and spent a lot of time on sunday shows and the national press rather than doing the retail politics that you need to face a real primary challenge. there was a lot more excitement among the tea party than he realized. with we had reports that cantor was consultants showing him that they were 20 points. >> and yes, they did. and jonathan, they had a bad presidential election with the polling, and the congressional districts are notoriously bad to determine the poll, but my gosh,

what happened here? he won by 11 points. >> and one of the explanations is that i read by chris salizz, of the washington post. so if you are using the turnout with the numbers of the model with the numbers that actually happened, it is going to throw things off of kilter, and for eric cantor, it completely obliterated the chances of winning an turning him into the most shocking political story that we can remember. >> here is what i think is fascinating about this, because i,b anybody who works for jansing & company knows that i have long been a proponent of boots on the ground. he got outspent, david brat, 26 to 1, and eric cantor spent more on steak dinners than brad spent on the entire campaign. and sarah palin wrote this, he won the trust of voters the old

fashioned way, one by one, and today's victory showed the power of the local grass roots, the boots on the ground who put up the signs and go door to door to provide great support for the candidates. i have to wonder if you are one of the tight congressional districts, buzz it make you rethink the way that you approach the rest of the cap campaign this is. >> yes, it is fascinating that you can spend millions of dol r dollars and no and not have any impressive turnout operation. >> and more than $5 million? >> if you spend $5 million on a race, you better have a lot of people knocking on the doors and getting people to the polls on election day. >> well, it is the hubris of the cantor campaign, but can you blame him? the internal shpolls show that u will win with 60% or more of the vote, and you are the house majority leader, and we have never seen a house majority leader lose. it is already difficult to unseat an income bept, and an incumbent also in the leadership

and all of the indicators said to him and the people that were supporting him, he would win re-election and win it big, but it did not turn out that way >> yes or no, answer to the question before we go. was the demise of the tea party overstated? >> i think so. >> oh, i never thought that the tea party was in demise. the tea party, as speaker boehner said, the republican party is the tea party, and that is because the republican party latched itself on to this movement filled with anger and they are seeing what happens when you latch on to the movement filled with anger. >> and thank you, both. of course, we are keeping our eyes on the house services committee hearing, and we are looking at the chairman congr s congressman buck mckeyon talking about the exchange of bowe bergdahl for five detainees, and what he believes will happen in

returning to the baltfield. during the day, we generate as much electricity as we can using solar. at night and when it's cloudy, we use more natural gas. this ensures we can produce clean electricity whenever our customers need it. ♪

[ male announcer ] that's why there's ocuvite to help replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. ocuvite. help protect your eye health.

this is live big moment on capitol him, congressional chairman making opening statements before the house armed services committee over the controversial deal of exchanging sergeant bowe bergdahl for five top detainees. bergdahl is still treated in landstuhl, germanyny wher where military says he still has not talked to his parents. and we will bring in david and goldie. david, today, we heard that chuck hagel is responsible for

the deal, and they are saying that it is the president's decision ultimately, and so what does the committee want out of chuck hagel? >> well, it is going to be very partisan as all of the hearings at the end to be this these days and attacking the administration, and this is happening as militants have taken over one of the largest cities in iraq. it is not good for the administration in terms of the foreign policy and the republicans are going to hammer a w away at this narrative of a weak president that is not standing up to the terrorists and making the deals with the terrorists, and fairly or unfairly, this is what they will do politically. >> fairly, unfairly, but goldie, some tough questions today are from the democrats? because many of them are not happy about the lack of notification. >> well, he is going to get tough questions from the democrats alike, but there are some democrats who are from the swing states who want questions to get on and they want to bon camera for the more conservative constituencies, and so there are doing to be difficult questions

to ask, but many of them are couched in the plit psysation of this that is happening before the mid-term election. >> and in terms of the five detain detainees, hillary clinton said they are not, and republicans, david, they have a different position about this. is this a partisan concern or still open for the bait? >> -- open for debate. >> well no, question, that i this are a threat to the after st afterganistan. and they are calling for more troops to stay there or calling for more troops, because that is the ish ssue. nup of the five are accused of killing americans and none of them are al qaeda members, but they are dangerous and could help the taliban. again, what is the position in aftz if the taliban is so dangerous, why are we leaving

afghanistan? >> well, there is a question about the way that the white house has handled it, and communications is something that you have worked on for years, goldie, and buck mckeyon has criticized the administration for the different explanationings of why congress was not notified and concerned about the bergdahl's condition and then a taliban threat to kill bergdahl, and as a long time marketing and communications expert, how much of what we are seeing on the republican side is how the white house has handled this and to what you might consider legitimate concerns? >> sure. having worked in crisis communications for probably 25 years, there is one thing that i know, sometimes there is no good answer. frankly, this white house had a myriad of reasons for not sharing more with the congress b tow say that the congress was not briefed franly is not the -- frankly is not the truth. they were briefed on what a general trade might look like and forthcome iing. it took months for it to happen. it happened quickly when the deal came together and based on

the health concerns for bergdahl, and based upon some necessary secrecy, because as the white house says, bergdahl's life was in danger, because of this, and if any information was leaked. but does congress deserve to have answers now? they do. they will hold the hearings and they have to answer up. >> we may have to interrupt as they go the chuck hagel, but knowing how partisan it is in washington, if you are chuck hagel and found yourself in this position, is the best you can hope the do is to come out alive and you won't change any minds, will you? >> no, it is an interesting moment for chuck hagel. >> well, here he is. he is going to start. let's listen in. >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss about the recovery of sergeant bowe bergdahl and the transfer of five detainees to a

qatar, and i have chief counsel with me. he was with us to have the memorandum of unings between qatar and the united states. and also here representing the joint chiefs of staff sitting behind me is brigadier general pat white who is the director of the joint staffs of pakistan-afghanistan coordination cell. he helped to coordinate the bergdahl recovery on behalf of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff dempsey. and the chairman as noted will join us later in the classified closed portion of the hearing. as you know, admiral dwinnifeld

and general dempsey played an important role here in this exchange. today, i will talk about the exchanges between flchlt mck mckeo -- chairman mckeon and why it was so urgent to release sergeant bergdahl and why we decided to go forward with the transfer and why it is consistent with the nation's interest and core military val law. mr. chairman, and members of the committee, i want to make one fundamental point. i would never sign any document or make any agreement, agree to any decision that i did not feel was in the best interest of this country, nor would the president of the united states.

he made the final decision with the full support of the national security team. i recognize that the speed with which we moved in this case has caused great frustration, and legit questions an concern. we could have done a better job. better job of keeping you informed, but i urge you the remember two things. this was an extraordinary situation. first, we were not certain that we would transfer those the detainees out of guantanamo until we had sergeant bergdahl in hand. and second, we had sergeant bergdahl in hand only a few hours after making the final arrangements. there are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange and congress obviously has an important constitutional role and right and responsibility to play in all of the military and intelligence matters.

as a former member, mr. chairman, of the senate select committee on intelligence and the council on foreign relations, i appreciate the vital role that congress plays in the our national security. i will present to this committee within the limits of open unclassified hearing and in more detail in the classified hearing, everything i can to answer the questions and assure you, this committee, the american people, that this prisoner exchange was done e legally and in mitigation of damage to our country. and let's talk about sergeant bowe bergdahl who was held captive by the haqqani network and officially listed missing. no charges have been brought against sergeant bergdahl and no

charges pending now. the entire apparatus, the military and the military community and the state department pursued every avenue to free sergeant bergdahl as everybody in this congress and the american people expect us to do. this committee e knows that there were a number of congressional resolutions introduced and referred to the committee directing the president of the united states to do everything that he could to get sergeant bergdahl released from captivity, and we never stopped trying to get him back, as the congress knows that. because he is a soldier in the united states army. questions about sergeant bergdahl's capture are as mr. smith noted and you, mr. chairman, are separate from the recovery, because we do whatever it takes to recover any, and every u.s. service member held in captivity. this pledge is woven into the fabric of the nation and the

military. as former central commander jim maddox put it, the bottom line is, quote, we don't leave people behind. that is the beginning and the end of what we stand for. we keep faith with the guys who sign on. that is all there is to it, end of quote. as for the circumstances surrounding the captivity as secretary of the army and the chief of staff odierno said, they will retake sergeant bergdahl in a manner of speaking to sergeant bergdahl, and i will remind anybody on this committee, and like any american, sergeant bergdahl has

right rights and his conduct is judged on the facts and not political hearsay, posture org charges or innuendo, and we owe that to any american, and especially those of the military and the famil s families. like most americans, i have been offended an disappointed in how the bergdahl family has been e treated by some in the country. no family deserves this. i hope that there is some sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the bergdahl family. in 2011, the obama administration conducted talks with the taliban on the detainee exchange involving the same five taliban detainees that were ultimately transe fered after the release of sergeant bergdahl. 2011. these talks which congress was briefed on. some of you in this room were in those briefings i understand, and congress was briefed in 2011 and in january of 2012 were

broken off by the taliban in 2012. we have not had direct talks with taliban since this time. in december of 2013, the government of qatar offered to serve as an intermediary, and in november of last year, we requested that the taliban provide a new proof of life video of sergeant bergdahl. in january of this year, we received the video and it is disturb i disturbing. some of you may have seen the video. it showed a deterioration in the physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. our entire intelligence community carefully analyzed every part of it. concluded that sergeant bergdahl's health was poor and possibly declining. this gave us growing urgency to act. in april of this year after briefly suspend ing ting the

engagement with us, the taliban again signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. at that point, we intensified the discussions with the qatar government about security assistance and assurances and particularly security assurances. on may 12th, we signed a memoranda of understanding with qatar, detailing the specific security measures undertaken and enforced, and enforced by them. if any taliban detainees were transferred to the custody. steve preston as i noted earlier signed that memoranda of understanding on behalf of the united states government and included in the negotiations. included in that m.o.u. were negotiation negotiations with the government of qatar like restrictions and monitoring and limitations on

activity and other significant measures that we will detail in the closed portion of this hearing. they were described, as you know, mr. chairman n the classified documentation and notification letter that i spent to this committee last week. that memoranda of understanding has been sent to the congress, the leadership, and the committees and every member of congress has an opportunity to review that memoranda of understanding in a closed setting. u.s. officials received a war g warning, we received a warning of the qatari intermediaries that as we continued, time was not on our side, and we will go into the closed meeting for those warnings, but this one indicated that the safety of sergeant bergdahl was growing.

and we went into negotiations of thou exchange of five detainees and to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of may 27th, following three days of intensive talks. that same day, president obama received a personal commitment and personal telephone call from the emir of qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements and a final decision was to move for ward for an exchange on that day. as the opportunity to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release became clear, we grew increasingly clear that any deal or leaks could further derail any deal of sergeant bergdahl. we were told by the qataris that any leak would compromise his

rele release, and we knew that he would be extremely vulnerable in any movement, and we knew that the personnel handling the handoff was in dangerous territory that we did not control, and they were in danger, and we had given no information on where the handoff would occur. for all of these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently and quietly. we believe that the exchange was the last best opportunity to free him. after the exchange was set in motion, only 96 hours passed before sergeant bergdahl was in our hands. throughout this period, there was great uncertainty, great uncertainty as to whether the deal would go forward. we did not know the general area of the handoff until 24 hours

befo before. we did not know the precise location until one hour before and we did not know until the moment that sergeant bergdahl was handed over safely to u.s. special operations forces that the taliban would mold up their end of the deal. so it was not until we recovered sergeant bergdahl on may 31st, that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five guantanamo detainees. the president's decision to move this transfer of the detainees was a tough call. i supported it, and i stand by it. as secretary of defense, i have the authority and the e responsibility as has been noted here to determine whether the detainees or any detainees, but these specific detainees of guantanamo bay can be transferred to the custody of another country. i take that responsibility, mr. chairman, members of this committee, damn seriously. damn seriously.

as i do any responsibility that i have in this job. neither i nor any member of the president's national security council were under any illusions of these five detainees. they were members of the taliban which controlled much of afghanistan's prior territory to the american invasion and overthrow that regime. they are enemy belligerents and taken to guantanamo late in 2001 and 2002, and they have been in the u.s. custody of guantanamo since then, 12, 13 years, but they have not been implicated in any attacks against the united states, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission. it was appropriate to continue to consider them for an exchange as we had been over the last few years as congress had been told

we were. if any of the detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. there's will also always, always some risk associated with the transfer of prisoners from guantanamo. this is not a risk-free business, and we get that. the u.s. government has transferred 620 detainees from guantanamo since may 2002. with 532 transfers occurring in the bush administration, and 88 transfers occurring in the obama administration. in the case of these five detainees the points put by the government of qatar made me determine with the authorization of the defense act, that the

inju injury to the citizens were mitigated. i consulted with all of the members of the president's national security team and asked them as they reviewed all of the detal details and revealed the draft of my notification letter, and specific line by line and word by word details of that letter. i asked for the reviews and the risks associated and asked to either concur or object to the transfer. is the the attorney general the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all supported this transfer, and all put their names on it. there was complete unanimity on this decision, mr. chairman, and the president and i would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully in the best

traditionings of the country. the operation to save sergeant bergdahl's life was fully consistent with the national security interests in at least five ways as well as the law. first, we completed with the national defense authorization act of 2014 by determining that the risk of the detainees posed to the united states and the american citizens and the interests were substantially mitigated, and that the transfer was in the national security interest of the united states. second, we fulfilled the commitment to recover all military personnel held captive. third, we follow the past post war game prisoner exchanges. a practice that has occurred in most wars that we fought. and first of all because bergdahl was a trained combatant held by a enemy force, it was

consistent with the policy to not offer hostages for negotiations. we did what was consistent with the previous congressional brief in ings, and this president provided as i noted in late 2011 and 2012 the reflection of the intent to transfer these five individual individuals. mr. chairman, i fully understand and appreciate the decisions of our decision to transfer these e detainees to qatar without providing 30-days' notice to congress, but under these exceptional circumstances, a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an american service member held captive an endangered for almost five years, the national security team and the president of the united states agreed that we needed to act swiftly.

we were mind fful that it was n simply a detainee transfer, but a military the operation with very high and complicated risks, and a very short window of opportunity that we did not want the jeopardize. and both for the sake of sergeant bergdahl, and our operat operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return. in consultation with the department of justice, the administration concluded that the transfer of the five could lawfully proceed. the options available to us to recover sergeant bergdahl were very few. and far from perfect. but they often are in wartime, mr. chairman. especially in a complicated war like we have been fighting for 13 years in afghanistan. w wars are messy and full of imperfect choices. i saw it firsthand during my service in vietnam in 1968.

1968, this committee may recall we sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead in one year. i see it as the secretary of defense, a few of you on this committee, a few of you on this committee have experienced war, and you have seen it. it is always about human beings and not about machines. swar a dirty business, and we don't like to deal with the realities, but realities they are. we must deal with them. those of us charged with protecting the national security interests of this country are called upon everyday to make the hard, tough, imperfect, and sometimes unpleasant choices based on the best information that we have, and within the limits of our laws. and always based on america's interest. every part of war like prisoner

exchanges is not some abstraction or some theoretical exercise, because the hard choices and the options don't fit neatly inclearly defined manuals and how-to manuels, because this is all part of the brutal realities of a brutal war. in an effort to rescue sergeant bergdahl, we complied with the law, and did what was in the best interest of the military and sergeant bergdahl. the president has constitutional authorities to protect american citizens and members of the armed forces. that is what he did. america does not leave the soldiers behind. we made the right decision. we did for it the right reasons to bring home one of our own people. as you know, i value the department's partnership with this congress and the trust that

we have developed over the years. i know that the trust has been broken. i know that you have questions about that. but i will tell you something else, i have always been straight forward, completely transparent with this committee since i have been secretary of defense, and i will continue to do that. i will do that always with all of my relationships and associations and responsibilities to the congress. that is what i always demanded, mr. chairman, of any administration when i was a member of the united states senate. i have been on your side of this equation. i understand that this morning

and that is what i am trying to do with this statement is that i understand that the circumstances around the decisions were imperfect and the decisions to lead to some kind of judgment always are, and the president is in the same position, that you have to make a choice, and you have to make a decision. the day after the bergdahl operation, bagram air base in afghanistan, i met with team of special operators who recovered sergeant bergdahl. they are the best of the best. people who didn't hesitate to put themselves at incredible personal risk to recover one of their own. i know we all thank them, and this committee thanks them, and we appreciate everything they do, and we thank all of the men and women in afghanistan who make the difficult sacrifices everyday for this country. later this week, we were reminded of the he h i have cost of war, and the heavy cost of war when we lost five american servicemen in afghanistan. i know our thoughts and our

prayers are with their families. we are grateful for their service. we are grateful for the service of all of the men and women in uniform around the world, and as i conclude, mr. chairman, i want to again thank this committee, this committee for what you do everyday to support our men and women around the world. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to make this statement and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. in your statement, you indicated that the president had made the final decision upon this operation and i appreciate your clarifying that, because we had a briefing a couple of days ago, and the last question asked by a member of congress to the briefers is who made the final decision and one of the briefers made the decision that you had made the final decision. i think that all of us understand how this place works,

and in a decision of this nature, it is always made by the commander in chief, and i think that you clarified that, and i appreciate that. mr. secretary, one of the things that has bothered me the most about this is the fact that we did pass a law last year that stated that congress should be notified 30 days before any transfer of detainees from guantanamo. just a little history, we were briefed some of us, and some of the leadership on this committee and other pertinent committees in congress starting in november of '11, that there was negotiations that we were entering into the negotiation s with the taliban looking towards reconciliation atm is point, at some point.

that meeting, it was also mentioned about a potential release of detainees for sergeant bergdahl. that was followed up with another briefing in january, and then the taliban set up a head quarters in qatar and president karzai learned of that and everything hit the fan, and we were briefed again saying that all of those negotiations had come to a halt. if we start those negotiations again, we will inform you. we never heard another brief in on that matter, and so when we passed that law, we felt that we were doing for it a good reason.

the law didn't just state that we would be given a notice, but it required that the department of providing critical pieces of information including how the risk posed by the detainees had been substantially mitigated and how the transfers and the national security interests in the united states and assessment of the capacity and willingness and past practices of the receiving country along with the notice, along with several other pieces of information, and previous one had required the same thing, and in fact, the language passed through this committee and this body was softened some by language of the senate that we worked out in conference which is the final language that was passed last year. you know, mr. secretary, you have just made a strong case by

the position taken by the president of the administration, and you just left one thing out, these e negotiations as we were told in a briefing last week started in january of this year. with the tape and with the other things that went forth, and i have been told in a couple of different briefings now that somewhere, i think that the final number given to us a couple of days ago was somewhere between 80 and 90 people in the department of justice, the state department, the homeland security i guess was one of them, and the department of defense knew about this. 80 to 90 people. the only one i know of that was elected is the president and perhaps the vice president, and we don't know who those 80 or 90 people were. and yet the leadership of the house that has the responsibility, and cold

leadership according to the constitution with the president of the united states was not informed, not told of any of this. if you had or somebody, and i think that you have the most credibility, but if you had been able to meet with the responsible people in the congress and give them the same story that you just now gave us, the law would have been complied with, and we didn't need to know the operational details, and we didn't need to know anything of that other than the things that i have mentioned that the law states, and full compliance with the law would have been met, a i don't think that we would have pushed back at all, and yet, when the law is ignored and we all feel keenly the responsibilities that we have, and sometimes more than others and this is one of those times where this is a very important principle. i wish that you or somebody had

sat down with the leadership of the congress, including the senate, and told us the same things that you have just told us in your briefing here. i think the that it would have gone, would have been very helpful in establishing or re-establishing or keeping the trust that we should have e between the congress and the president of the united states, the supreme court and all of us trying to work together to the satisfaction of the constitution and the american people that we are all sent here to serve. let me just ask one question, mr. secretary hagel. will the department fully cooperate with the committee's

inquiry of the detainee exchange including the recent request that i sent a couple of days ago for documents? >> absolutely, yes. >> thank you very much, and thank you for your service in the military in uniform n t, in senate, and now in this tough job that you hold. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and two important parts to this and one is that the chairman just mentioned and i will get to in a second, but the first is that this whole notion that we have somehow broken present and that this negotiation that we exchanged with terrorists and went against a longstanding u.s. policy and that is the essential criticism from the speaker yesterday, and i believe it is absolutely wrong given the situation that we were in as you described it. we went to war in afghanistan, and sergeant bergdahl was fighting in the war, and we were

fighting directly against the taliban. for the first couple of months they were the government and knocked out and they kept fighting as an insurgent force. could you walk us through, and maybe mr. preston, a as the law eier, you can get into this how you view this and whether or not it is a precedent, because it does not seem to be. there are exchanges as you have mentioned in just about every war that we have fought of prisoners and whatever one may think of the war with the taliban, we were fighting a war with them and in a battle zone and it was not a diplomat or a civilian, but a member of the armed forces who was captured in that battle. so how -- do you think that we have set some precedent here for negotiating with terrorists or clearly and as it is in my mind in a different legal category? >> congressman smith, thank you. i, as you noted alluded to some of the general terms of this in the statement, but two general comments to respond, and then i

will ask mr. preston for, as you suggested his thoughts. one, this was an extraordinary situation for the reasons that i mentioned i think in a classified brief inings that so of you have attended or heard, and will get more into the extroo extraordinary dynamics when we close this hearing down and go into the classified. it was a very unique set of dynamics that we were dealing with number one, and on the precedent-setting side of this, i'm not the legal person here, but i do occasionally read. i don't think that there were any precedents set by this. as far as i know from the past war wars and how we have always gotten our prisoners back or attempted to get them back, time of war or after a war, we can

get into all of the appropriate categorizations of who are combatants and who we were with war at and who were terrorists, and we have legal definitions for all of those, but i said something at the beginning of my testimony here, i know it is imperfect, but i do think that it plays into the larger scope of what we were dealing with. what we are dealing with and still dealing with and will be dealing with, and not just in afghanistan, but when you look at yesmen, and what -- yemen, and what has gone on all over the world, and what is unprecedented today is the threats and what we are up against around the world. organized sophisticated terrorist groups. have we declared war on any of them or how would we define them other than some as ter trorist

groups, but these are dynamic and unprecedented situations that this country has never had to deal with before. i will make one last comment and then ask mr. preston for his legal opinion on your question. you all have major responsibilities, and we each in government have major responsibilities. i have the responsible of getting up every morning and i have one responsibility, and that is the security of the country, and this is what i am charged to do and i agreed to do it, and the president asked me to do it, and i took the oath of office and that is to the secure of the country and that is my primary focus everyday and you all have the focuses, and not too dissimilar from mine, either, on some of the things, but i have a more narrow gauge, but the president of the united states has the ultimate responsibility for the security

of the country, and soy reand so i remind us of all of this and it is imperfect and maybe it sounds like an excuse, but it is not an excuse, but it is reality. i will ask mr. preston to comment. >> thank you. there is of course, a good deal of technical and legal detail of what constitutes a p.o.w. per se, versus a detained combatant or privileged or unprivileged belligerent, and i don't believe that we have to get into that to answers the question, but we had detained combatants held by opposing forcing in the same conflict and as that, this exchange falls within the same prisoner exchanges of open posing force pos -- opposing forces in a time of war. a and it is true that the taliban is not this conventional state

that is what has been party to the traditional armed conflict in the past, but it is not the character of the holding party, but the character of the detainee that inspires and motivates our committee to the recovery of service members held abroad. we don't see this as setting a particular precedent, because it does fall within the tradition of prisoner exchanges, and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with non-state actors who are holding service member in order to achieve the recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example that i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot michael durant in somalia who was held captive by the war lord mohammad addai, and there was a circumstance where the united

states secured durant's freedom function a ally in exchange for the individuals captured in the same operation. >> okay. i just want to say again, that any characterization of this is negotiating with terrorists totally misses the fact that we were and are at war, and sergeant bergdahl is a member of the military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end of 2014 that is going to be the end off hosti hostilities which is possibly not because we will have troops there, but that these five would have had to be released at the end of the hostilities and is that the department's opinion or undecide or feel the opposite? >> well, the sir,way i would an that, sir, is under domestic law under the amf and under the international law of principles

of arm ed conflict that we have authority, and had the authority to hold them as combatant belligerent belligerents. >> even after the war? >> well, i will speak to that, because there is a point of time that the conflicts that we are engaged with the talibans and their associates will come to an end, and when that comes to an end, the holding of the unprivileged belligerents would end unless there were some other basis for continuing to hold them such as prosecution. >> but it is not just the war in afghanistan. >> that is right. >> it is the broader battle as defined under the aumf? >> yes, and the further point is that i'm not aware of any determination as yet that with the cessation of the current combat mission at the end of the year that the armed con can flikts are determined to be over such that it would trigger the

consequences that we have been discuss i discussing. thank you. >> and the last thing they will say and no need to respond to this, but i want to re-emphasize the point that the chairman has made and the point that i made in the opening statement that i would be more so helpful and the department of defense in my experience has been very good about consulting with us, and working with this body, so it is not really about that, but the white house on the other hand has not been very good about keeping in touch with congress and consulting with us on major policy and it is hit or miss and if we could do that, it would make my job a whole lot easier if we could trust congress a little bit and have those consultations before policy decision decisions are finalized and it would make this entire town work better than it is right now. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. two things that i need to have clarified. did you, mr. preston, say that

at some point conflict would end and we would release these people or have to release them and no reason to end them, and that conflict is ending in december of this year? >> sir, the point is when the armed conflict ends, the international law basis for continuing to hold who are being held on the basis of their membership in the -- >> well, mr. preston, you have to point out which armed conflict you are talking about. your answers was not the armed conflict in afghanistan, but the one defined under the aumf, and in other words, as long as we are fighting al qaeda and the associated forces, that is the armed conflict that you were talking about being over and not afghanistan. i think that is the point of the chairman's question. >> well, the point is that we are currently in armed conflict with the taliban and with al qaeda. at some point, the armed

conflict with the taliban ends, and at that point for those detainees that are being held as enemy belligerents against our enemy, the taliban, unless there is an additional basis for holding them, then we would no longer have that international law basis for holding them. now it has been suggested that the taliban may also be candidates to be held as associates of al qaeda as the cop flikt wi-- as the conflict with al qaeda continues. >> in the point that mr. smith made is that this, this conflict may not end in december just because the majority of our troops are pulled out. >> that is my understanding as well, sir. >> i mean, we thought that the conflict was over in iraq, and we see that it is not. it continues to go