mr. chairman. secretary hagel and mr. preston, thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information you had in your statement and you support your position. i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is for you, mr. secretary, what impact with sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment, if we had not engaged in his exchange, have had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down forces? did his continued imprisonment include a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in the sense, congresswoman, that as i answered in a previous question about putting at risk american lives to capture him -- not to capture him, but to get him back, and to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk. our men and women who

the speeches maid by mr abe and mr hagel gave me the impression that they coordinated with each other, staging provocation against china. >> the live pictures of the asian security summit in singapore. that is 24 hours ago. chuck hagel complained about china. >>> well, a journalist and analyst in chinese affairs joins us live from beijing. thank you for being with us. what can we read into the response by china? >> well, it was a typical summary of suite talk, noble intentions, and empty slogans that were fashionable until the olympic games. at that time it was china's peaceful rise and development. it can be repeated. peaceful development. rise in cooperation, security. china's role in u.n. peace activities, and he didn't mention one flash point, particularly close with the philippines, and the crisis with japan. yes, it's all - well, more addressed to a domestic audience than to the world. the world cannot take this seriously, or at least not as the full picture. >> i mean, to hear you say the world cannot be taking it seriously. at the moment this appears to be a diplomatic spat, a

the speeches made by mr abe and mr hagel gave me the impression that they coordinated with each other, staging provocative actions. >> richard sinker is a writer and senior feller at the school of international studies, saying south-east asian nations are willing to put their strong trade ties on the line and respect. the time to do this balancing act of having good relations with china, they have to. it's the 800 pound guerilla, they hedge their bets by keeping the united states involved as a kind of a counterweight to any kind of promise with china. it's a tough balancing act. at this point i don't think they are having problems from the u.s. side of things. what really is going to depend is how china will act in the next couple of years and whether or not they'll get ipp trance gent and insist that south-east ain nation's accept the chinese definitions as to what counts as sof repity or enforcement capabilities in the south china sea. >> italy's navy rescued more than 3,500 migrants in 24 hours. the majority were men from syria and north africa. there were hundreds of children. the

the speeches made by mr ab, and mr hagel gave me the impression that they coordinated with each other, staging provocative actions. >> richard is a writer and fellow at the school of international studies and joins us from singaore. thank you for joining us. we heard china hitting back at the u.s. and japan. will beijing take further action or was this a face-saving message for domestic chinese audience? >> well, i think a lot of this is basically dash i think it's interesting that you wept off script to -- that he went off script to say these things, he's oem concerned and upset. they probably feel like they are being ganged up op. to a certain extent it's true, they derfe it, because -- deserve it because mostly it's china causing the aggressive actions in the china sea. they are called on is it. >> from the beijing point of view. if tensions were to escalate, particularly in and amongst the disputed territory. are we likely to see action by the u.s., in the form of sanctions or military manoeuvres? >> well, i don't think you'll see sanctions. i think particularly the u.s.-china rel

the speeches made by mr abba and mr hagel gave me the impression they coordinated with each other and staged provocative actions against china. >> richard is a writer and senior fellow at the school of international studies and said south-east asian nations are willing to put strong trade ties on the line in support of a droppinger military -- stronger military presence in the region. >> they are trying to do a delicate act of having good relations with china, they kind of have to. they are trying to hemming their bets by -- hemming their bets by -- hedge their bets by keeping the united states involved as a counterweight to problems. it's a tough balancing act. i don't think they are having too many problems from the u.s. side of things. what is going to depend's how china is going to hackt in the next couple of years, and whether they'll be more ipp trance get and insist that south-east asian nations accept what counts as sovereignty or enforcement capabilities. >> the trial for three of al jazeera's staff detained in egypt resumes on sunday. still ahead - we take a look at problems

mr. hagel's attitude. if you've got something to say, just say directly. mr. abe was suggesting the events by instigating disputes. >> reporter: the purpose of the annual forum is to tackle a range of security issues in the asia pacific region. but in recent years, the focus has squarely shifted to china. takafumi terui, nhk world. >>> u.s. defense secretary chuck hagel says he hopes an exchange of prisoners will lead to direct talks with the taliban. militants released army sergeant bowe bergdahl on saturday after nearly five years in captivity. in return, the u.s. government freed five inmates from the military prison at guantanamo bay. hagel made a surprise visit to afghanistan to celebrate the release of the sole remaining american military hostage. he said he hopes the transfer will provide a break for negotiations. american personnel from bergdahl had been freed then loaded five taliban commanders onto an aircraft bound for qatar. the former inmates were high ranking military an intelligence officials. taliban leader mullah mohammed omar issued a rare st

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

mr. hagel, it's your responsibility to notify congress not the president's responsibility. you're to make that notification. did you personally decide on your own not to do that? >> i decided in consultation with the inner agency, the president was aware of it. >> it's your call not to notify congress. as a senator -- >> i notified congress but i notified congress when -- >> not even within the spirit of the 30 days. even if you did it on may 12th, you would not hear this push back from us. >> congressman, i explained why the notification was handled the way it was. >> i know. >> by the way, i never said i don't trust congress. that's your words. >> yes, you did. over and over. >> i never said i don't trust congress. >> mr. secretary -- >> you want to check the record. >> were any of the detainees aware of the negotiations for their release? >> let me ask the general counsel. i don't know. >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> if we were to get the visitor logs and flight manifest at gitmo it

mr. chairman. secretary hagel and mr. preston, thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information you had in your statement and you support your position. i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is for you, mr. secretary, what impact with sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment, if we had not engaged in his exchange, have had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down forces? did his continued imprisonment include a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in the sense, congresswoman, that as i answered in a previous question about putting at risk american lives to capture him -- not to capture him, but to get him back, and to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk. our men and women who

mr. chairman. secretary hagel and mr. preston, thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information you had in your statement and you support your position. i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is for you, mr. secretary, what impact with sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment, if we had not engaged in his exchange, have had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down forces? did his continued imprisonment include a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in the sense, congresswoman, that as i answered in a previous question about putting at risk american lives to capture him -- not to capture him, but to get him back, and to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk. our men and women who

mr. hagel repeated, secretary hagel row peted, that he was in peril.ianne feinstein said there's no evidence, no reason whatever so believe that. it looks as though -- the rest seems minor and trivial. the third is that this was an attempt to reach out to the moderates and the taliban. i'll leave it up to you to decide if that's an oxymoron. it's back to cold war thinking. we were always trying to appreciate the moderates in the kremlin so that the hawks in the kremlin -- we try and manipulate our enemies sometimes. we had a plethora of reasons, none that seem satisfactory. >> we asked you for questions for the panel, and we go this on facebook from jim handy. he writes, on i "when is the president going to invite the families of hose killed looking for bergdahl to the rose garden? he spent a lot of time covering the white house. do they realize how tone deaf it was and -- >> a lot of democrats have agree that the rose garden was a mistake. they should have made a statement strong and silent approach would have been better. the parents had been in regu

mr. chairman, secretary hagel and mr. preston. thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information that you had in your statement and i support your position. i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is for you, mr. secretary. what impact would sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment, if we had not engaged in his exchange, had on the security situation in afghanistan as we drawdown forces? did his continued imprisonment create a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in a sense, congresswoman, as i answered in a previous question about putting at risk american lives to capture, not to capture but to get him back, and to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option. that would have put our men and women at risk. our men and women are at risk carrying out this one

mr. chairman, secretary hagel and mr. preston and thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony. secretary hagel, i appreciate the detailed information that you had in your statement and i support your position. i, i do appreciate also your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is, for you, mr. secretary, what impact would sergeant bergdahl's continued imprisonment if we had not engaged in his exchange, have had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down forces? did his continued imprisonment create a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> well, in a sense, congresswoman, that as i answer in a previous question, about putting at risk american lives to capture him, not to capture him, but to get him back and to, to do that if it would have taken another course of action or if we would have taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk. our minute and

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 confe

the speeches by mr abe and mr hagel gave me the impression that they coordinated with each other and staged provocative access. >>> we are joined by a jourpist and analyst on chinese affairs, shag they want the chinese to separate from its traditional allies. >> what china is aiming is slowly bit step by step reduce americans strategic domination and what it wants is to separate america from its traditional allies, philippines and japan. and particularly from vietnam. they made advances to the united states. they are particularly angry at japan, because abe, the japanese prime minister offered patrol boats to boost vietnam and the philippines, these are not naval warships. they are armed, they will help the countries politically and logistically in preventing incidents of chinese bullying. >> now, the sudanese woman sentenced to death for abandoning islam may be released, according to a government official. meriam ibrahim's lawyers are skeptical that she will be freed and says the decision will be made by the courts. now, miriam gave birth this week whilst in captivity. her case caus

so why is the deputy national security advisor trying to spin lawmakers that it was all mr. hagel?> well, because unfortunately, national security and the obama administration far too often is treated as a matter of partisan politics. these are the people that benghazi focused all on this story about a silly internet video rather than the fact that terrorists attacked and murdered four americans, including the first u.s. ambassador killed since 1979. it's politics all the time -- >> as a political matter, let me ask you this, as a political matter, god for bid they do killed a digs l american, as a political matter, it's not cliek hillary clinton sitting there does not realize that's a possibility or president obama doesn't realize that's a possibility. how can they be so explicit about the fact it's not going to happen? >> well, the white house has a pattern. when it engages in action, particularly extreme action, it prepares people with talking points to vilify anyone who disagrees. it was obvious when the president held the ceremony at the white house with the parents of sergean

arbai and mr. hagel gave me the impression they coordinated with each other and made prove vocat actions against china. >> an analyst on chinese affairs:. >> what china is aim something slowly but step by step, reduce american strategic domination and what it wants is to separate american from its traditional allies, the philippines and jap japan. particularly vietnam becausevat vietn vietnam. they are particularly angry at japan, also, because arbae, the zjapanese prime minister has offered coastal patrol boats to both vietnam and the philippines. these are not and a half warshi warships, but they are likely armed and they will help these countries both politically and logistically in presenting incidents of chinese bullying. >> thousands of troops and police have been deployed in the thai capitol, bangkok to stop any anticoup demonstrations. between them and protesters, refusing to accept the military takeover. activists have been planning a large weekend rally, but the army has banned political gather

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 forw

mr. chairman, secretary hagel and mr. preston.pearin thank you very much for provid appearing today and providing uy with your testimony. secretary hagel, i approachha y the detailed information that you had in your state and i support your position.inued i doco appreciate your commitme to the men and women in uniform and your steadfast leadership during these challenging times. my first question is for you, r mr. secretary, what impact would sergeant bergdahl's continued se imprisonment if we had not engaged in his exchange have had on the security situation in ioi afghanistan as we draw down forces? did his continued imprisonment create a heightened security threat to our men and women in uniform? >> r well, in a sense, n, that congresswoman, that as i answered in a previous questionn about putting at risk american lives to capture him -- not to r capture him but to get him back and to do that, it would have if taken another course of action or we would have taken another option, that would have put ourt men and women at

mr. chairman, thank you very much. secretary hagel, mr. preston, it's good to see both of you. thank you for being here today. mr. secretary, on june 1, you were on "meet the press," and you expressed hope that the release of sergeant bergdahl would lead to direct u.s. talks with the taliban. mr. secretary, the taliban have stated there will be no peace with the afghan government, with the united states or any foreign presence as long as troops remain in afghanistan and prisoners are contained at guantanamo bay. they have repeated these statements time and time again and have proven they do not desire peace with the united states or its allies. with this known, why did you at at point on "meet the press" express hope -- i mean, we can all have hope -- that there would, the release of the sergeant would lead to some type of direct negotiations with the united states? and do you today feel that that is still a real possibility? maybe there's something you want to say in the classified setting that you can't say here today, but this to me, your statement was received by many of th

mr. chairman, thank you very much. secretary hagel, mr. preston, it is good to see you both, and thank you for being here to dda. mr. secretary on june 1st, you were on "meet the press" and you expressed hope that the release of sergeant bergdahl would lead to direct u.s. talk thes with the taliban. mr. sek ta, tcretasecretary, th said that there is not going to be any peace in afghanistan as long as there are prisoners in guantanamo bay, and they have repeated the statements time and time again and they have proven that they do not desire peace with the united states or our allies. with this known, why did you at that point on "meet the press" express hope, and we can all have hope, that with the release of the sergeant would lead to the some direct negotiation s with the united states, and do you today feel that that is still a real possibility. maybe it is something that you want to say in the classified setting that you can't say here today, but this is to me, your statement was received by many of the people that i represent in the 3r

mr. secretary hagel.ill 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 kn

. >> to you wrote mr. hagel a letter a couple of days.the number one thing you want to know from him? >> i guess how the decision was made. i've had a couple of briefings this week and the first one was a briefing for staff that i attended and i have some questions. how many people knew about this, because last year we passed a law, signed into law by the president, that before any detainee was transferred out of guantanamo bay, they would give 30 days written notice to congress. time for us to ask questions, time for us to look into it a little bit. they didn't do that. they totally ignored that. so i asked how many people in the administration knew about this? in the briefing they talked about they were concerned about a leak. they said, well, less than 100. yesterday at a briefing they said, well, between 80 and 90. four different departments. and not a single member of congress was alerted or given notice. i think there is a real disconnect there. the law was just totally ignored. and then they went ahead and released these five priso

yesterday he made it very clear, mr. hagel did, it was the commander in chief.rs, that they walked off base at will. their account seems to have been disregarded by many. >> there are many things is is unacceptable, if you cut a deal that many people, according to almost all the polls are not happy with, they think it's unequal, they have huge questions, and you can't even tell the house armed services committee who you dealt with, did you deal with the taliban, haqqani network? who was holding our guy? if you don't know the answer, it's worse than you not telling us the answer. you can't tell me that 'cause here is what we're getting to, the haqqani network needs money. they don't care about the taliban. did the taliban somehow pay the haqqani network with our money somehow? that's what we're trying to get clear on what was going on. >> eventually we will know. we didn't handle some of this right was hagel's quote. >> did we almost nuke north carolina? yes. details up next that what's on the inside is what really counts. agreed. ♪ this is the jeep® grand cherok

mr. secretary. >> congressman -- >> hagel revealing the administration's intelligence concluded the five taliban, some tied to al qaeda, don't pose a direct threat to the u.s. >> their focus would almost certainly be on taliban efforts inside afghanistan. not the homeland of the united states. >> reporter: but there was a moment suggesting everyone take a deep breath. >> and i would just ask us to think for a moment how we would be responding if bowe bergdahl was our son. i really fear for his return to this country with the kind of rhetoric that is being spewed in this very room. >> reporter: barbara starr, cnn, the pentagon. >> and congressman jackie speier of california, you just heard her there expressing her concern about what is being said to describe bergdahl is "outfront." good to have you with us, congresswoman. when you said you fear what might happen to him hen he comes back to the united states, what did you mean? >> i'm very concerned that there will be efforts to try him in the court of public discussion as opposed to giving him all of the opportunities, all of the due proc

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

mr. chairman. secretary hagel, at the start of the committee you made a statement that said the justice department said the president has constitutional authority to essentially do this deal and ignore the 30-day requirement in the law in this case. is that -- did i hear that correctly? >> someone asked the question i think on what basis the president made a decision and what authority he had. i think my response was -- >> very similar to that. >> could we get a copy of the letter from the justice department that says that the president had that authority? >> sir, we received a request for that and we're taking that back. it's not entirely within our control. >> thank you. and i look forward to see you that. mr. preston, you're an attorney from yale and harvard. which provision of the constitution would allow the president to ignore the law? >> the president has authority under article 2 and has a duty and responsibility to exercise that authority. it is not a matter of ignoring the law, it is where the exercise o

mrs. clinton said and chuck hagel said and the president has said, bergdahl was not a prisoner of war.om for decades. this is how wars end. that's true if we consummated some kind of agreement on ending the conflict and he's cited several examples that are all true, but the war was over. maybe this president thinks unilateral surrender needs to happen to end the war. if a ransom was paid at our behest or with american tax dollars, it means the government is funding a criminal enterprise that kills americans. why were the five taliban detainees released from gitmo? what assurance do we have to keep them from reentering the battlefield? does this president realize that having announced the terms of this exchange every american, not just those on the battlefield, every american traveling overseas becomes vulnerable to kidnapping and a senior u.s. officer in the ÷ the united states in his chain needs to stand up on his hind feet and convene an article 22 investigation. it's the only way to get sergeant bergdahl justice. either exonerate him or condemn him. everybody needs to be saying thin

mr. secretary. >> congressman. >> reporter: hagel revealing the administration's intelligence concluded theo al qaeda, don't pose a direct threat to the u.s. >> their focus would almost certainly be on taliban efforts inside afghanistan. not homeland of the united states. >> reporter: but there was a moment suggesting everyone take a deep breath. >> i would just ask us to think for a moment how we would be responding if bowe bergdahl was our son. i -- i really fear for his return to this country with the kind of rhetoric that is being spewed in this very room. >> tonight, d.o.d. official tell me all of the travel arrangements have been finalized for bowe bergdahl's return to a u.s. military hospital in texas. the final decision about when he will make that journey has not been made. but everything indeed has put into place. >> we'll wait and see what happens on that front, barbara. thank you. let's continue the conversation now with the chairman of the house armed services committee, republican mark mckeon. five hours plus. were you convinced, did he do a good job in you accept his argument

here's hagel. >> mr.an, thank you, ranking member smith, thank you, and to the members of this committee, i appreciate an opportunity to discuss the recovery of sergeant bowe bergdahl and transfer of five detainees from guantanamo bay to qatar. i appreciate having the department of defense's general counsel, steve preston, here with me this morning. mr. preston was one of our negotiators throughout this process in qatar and signed on behalf of the united states the memorandum of understanding between the governments of qatar and the united states. also here representing chief joints of staff sitting behind me is pat white, director of the joint staffs pakistan/afghanistan coordination cell. general white helped coordinate the bergdahl recovery on behalf of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. the vice chairman will join us later this morning in the classified closed portion of the hearing. and as you know, general dempsey and the admiral played critical roles in the meetings at the

i want to thank secretary hagel, and mr. preston, for testifying before the committee today on the may 31st transfer of five senior taliban detainees from detention at guantanamo bay to the government of qatar. the matter before us is deeply troubling. the committee has begun a full investigation into the administration's decision. it's unprecedented negotiations with terrorists, the national security implications of releasing these dangerous individuals from u.s. custody, and the violation of national security law. we hope for and expect the department's full cooperation. let me be clear up front on the focus of today's hearing. it is not my intention to dive into the circumstances of the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl from his base in 2009. there will be a time and a process for that. i also do not intend to use this hearing to weigh the merits of returning an american soldier to the united states. everyone who wears the uniform should be returned home. however, the detainee transfer raises numerous national security p

mr. chairman. based on secretary hagel and general dempsey. based on my previous service in the senate and some service now, i'm fully aware that the pentagon on a contingency on the shelf for just about every possible scenario everything from a nuclear war and an invasion from canada and everything in between. my question is given what we've seen here happen in iraq, maybe we didn't anticipate how stunningly quick a territory could be yielded and major cities could be taken over without resistance. nevertheless after we failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement with iraq, there had to be some anticipation that some of this territory would be up for grabs and scenarios where a lack of confidence in the leadership or capability of the iraqi military on its own would lead to something like this. was there a plan on the shelf, if so what is it? if there wasn't, why isn't it. general dempsey, i think i wrote down the quote. you said we are in the process of developing options. that is different than having options thought through and strat

mr. reid: i move to proceed to the hagel sport sportsmen legis. the president pro tempore: clouter. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leerksd the senate will be in a period of machine until 11:00 a.m. this morning. the majority will control the first half, the republicans the final half. at 11:00 a.m., the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of keith harper to be united states representative to the united nations human rights council. this is postcloture time. the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. at noon then there will be two roll call votes. one on confirmation of the harper nomination, and then thee will be a cloture vote on the nomination of sharon bowen. the senate will be in recess from until 2:15 following the votes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: f

mr. putin, you might want to watch your words. we'll be right back. >>> the defense secretary chuck hagel said today it's unfair to sergeant bergdahl to make any presumptions about why he left his base five years ago until a comprehensive review is conducted. back wie keep talking about the taliban in afghanistan but it's really, you say, who? >> it's the haqqani network. the haqqanis have always had them. afghan taliban is one thing but the haqqani network is another. it's about 80% soprano and 20% al qaeda. the afghan taliban got these detain ees back but what did the haqqani get? they gave up bowe bergdahl. the white house has not told us what the haqqanis got and that's important. >> josh, part of your mission was -- go ahead, josh. >> my theory on that is, i had read some stuff while i was in afghanistan the last time i did some intelligence work and it seemed like the taliban and the other groups, there's many different terrorist groups over there. afghanistan has always been a warlord state. there may have been some kind of an arrangement where now the haqqanis are going to get a bigger piece of afghanistan when they take it

hagel and congressman mike conknowway. take a listen. >> i never said i don't trust the congress. those are your words. >> no, no. yor actions -- >> i didn't say. >> your actions demonstrate mrcretary, that you do not trust congress because -- >> now it's my actions. >> the ranking member, something like this, your actions say you don't trust congress. i get it. >> congressman, secretary hagel said multiple times in the hearing the administration could have handled sharing the information with congress better. was that enough of an answer? do you think hagel and the obama administration didn't tell congress because they didn't trust congress wouldn't leak the deal and maybe try to stop it? >> i think probably multiple reasons maybe they were concerned about leaks though we get sensitive information all the time. i think the bigger reason was when they first broached this deal back in 2011, republicans and democrats both said, this is a bad deal, we don't want to release those five taliban from guantanamo. so they knew congress was opposed on a bipartisan basis, and they chose to ignore the law. and this is a lot more than just, you know, congress getting its feelings hurt. t

constitution chuck hagel has lashed out at china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back on personally think the speech by mr haygood is full of hate jimminy full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the due west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're an indonesian aim is you're looking at this and what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tensions in washington i'm going to check out our team now prime minister shinzo moves to try and militarized japan of certainly being met with some pretty fierce public opposition let's bring up some details for you here in our international latest poll is concluded by japan's national broadcaster saying that forty one percent are against tokyo's plans for a constitutional where vision whereas i just approximately thirty percent support the idea of greater involvement in international affairs now independent journalist james cole but he thinks there are some major

chuck hagel has lashed out at china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back on personally think the speech by mr hague will is full of hate germany full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the due west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're an invasion is you're looking at this and what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to war tensions in washington i'm going to check on our team after the break it's breaking the sets with. well into the. show thirty four countries spend over billion euros on culture that says to each one hundred people a million degrees with them talk amongst yourselves from st petersburg to france we chumbley such as the sun. we've got the future covered. economic down in the final. day. in the red and i think it will be every week. what's happening folks and i'm a martin and this is a break in the set but once again there's terrifying news to report out of iraq earlier tod

constitution chuck hagel has lashed out at china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back on personally think the speech by mr haygood is full of hate jimminy for the threats and intimidation china is accusing the west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're an invasion is you're looking at this and what you're seeing is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tension in washington i'm going to check on our team ok get the very latest news at the top of the hour but back then up for you next the latest episode of the doc cute reality show about the work of our correspondents in the field coming up next and if you're watching us in the u.k. miss out either you are going underground with action returns. right. first street. and i think you're. on our reporters. in. the in the. did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and. that's because a free and open process is critical to our democracy al

constitution chuck hagel has left out of china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back. i personally think the speech by mr hague was full of had germany full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you were in indonesia is you're looking at this and what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tension in washington i'm going to check out our team and prime minister shinzo as moved to try and militarized japan have certainly been met with a lot of fierce opposition in fact japan's international broadcaster has been gauging public opinion on this issue let's bring up some of the polls for you here on r.t. international according to them just over thirty percent of those interviewed support the idea of japan's militarization whereas forty one percent are against tokyo's plans for a constitutional reversion allowing the use of war in international disputes we talked t

chuck hagel has lashed out at china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back i personally think the speech by mr hague was full of her germany full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the due west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're in indonesia is you're looking at this and what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tension in washington i'm going to check out our team or prime minister moves to militarize japan are probably not going down well with the country's people and we know that because japan's international broadcast has been gauging public opinion let's take a look at courting to the polls more than thirty percent of those interviewed back the idea of japan's militarization whereas forty one percent are against tokyo's plans for a constitutional revision that would allow the use of war in international disputes we spoke to one age expert who says that the u.s. as a direct in

chuck hagel has lashed out at china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back on personally think the speech by mr hague was full of germany full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the due west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're really in danger name if you're looking at this and what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tensions in washington i'm going to check on r.t. last year pin cities have been brought to a standstill as txi drivers protested against a new mobile phone app which they say threatens their livelihoods service allows customers to catch a ride and calculate the fate by tracking the distance. has been to a strike of london cabbies in trafalgar square which created a quick look. it's a species that's roamed the purchase capital for well over a century but is london's iconic black cab about to become extinct the contrary i was protesting head to want to be in london the

constitution chuck hagel has left out of china for what he called destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the south china sea china hit back. i personally think the speech by mr hague was full of hate germany full of threats and intimidation china is accusing the due west of using the disputes and exacerbating them to gain a strategic advantage in the region if you're in indonesia if you're looking here is that what you're seeing is is that japan is piling on along with the united states japan may say that its plan is to secure peace but critics argue any military expansion would lead to more tension in washington i'm going to check out r.t. prime minister shinzo up those moves to militarize japan have been met with some pretty massive public opposition by japan's international broadcaster has been gauging public opinion let's bring up some of the latest polls here on r.t. international numbers suggesting that just over thirty percent of those interviewed do support the idea of japan's militarization whereas at least forty one percent are firmly against tokyo's plans for a constitutional reversion allowing the use of war and international disputes we did spea