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 12month 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 wouldnt 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 dont think anyone would have wanted us to wait if we had a chance to get bergdahl until the socalled 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 wasnt 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 thats not new. Wasnt any arbitrary the administrations position isnt new, but i dont understand how his unilateral decisions bring in the taliban and make them a negotiating partner. Well, im not sure he said that about what you just said. Im 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 theres even a Peace Agreement. All thats happened is the president said were 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 dont 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. Its not a deal with terrorists releasing a hostage. This is a negotiated prisoner release with a legitimate type of government. I dont see where the taliban im not sure i get your point though, congressman. Youre saying this was not a deal with terrorists, is that correct . Thats correcright. The alternative is this is a deal with a legitimate government of some kind with a legitimate military that were in the process of hammering out a Peace Agreement. None of those things are happening. The president didnt say were 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. Thats what we were talking about in 20112012. Taliban shut all that off, so this was a straight lets 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 didnt say that. You didnt 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. Im 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. Were 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 were talking about the afghani taliban. These are bad guys. Theres no question that theyre 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 shayporter. Thank you. Secretary hagel, thank you very much for being here and obviously its 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 its 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 im 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 im also would like to comment, and ill let you wrap up with this, but id like to comment about the reintegration process. One of my colleagues suggested that there was something going on that you didnt 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 theres a reintegration process and theres 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 id 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 youd like to add to that, i still have three minutes and please tell me why theres five, a little bit about the reintegration process, and any other comments youd 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 dont know. But for us, for the military, that is. Getting him healthy enough, his body, mind, spirit, and thats the point of a reintegration process. You know, your point about what weve learned since p. O. W. S came back from vietnam is an important point. Weve 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 thats the focus. Lets get him healthy, mind, body, spirit, then well 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 doesnt mean that he wont have to answer questions. There are important questions that need to be answered. Were just waiting for him to be well enough. Thats 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 . Ill get to that. One other point on that, i remind you again, youll have an opportunity to look at the socalled form 156 which does give a review at the time of his disappearance. It was signed off i believe in august of 2009. Thats up here at the committee. Now, the five. Okay. General counsel has asked i just before the secretary addresses im sorry, we wont 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 thats part of it, but i think theres 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 dont, i cant speak for any other society and i wouldnt try, but our society is every human being is important. So why wasnt it 20, why wasnt it 3 . The five started to be what the taliban insisted on. They wanted more, had been six, then they wanted everything. So i dont think theres any magic to it. Thats the way it developed, but, again, we dont 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 administrations 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, thats 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, well 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 well 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 dont want to do that and if its okay, well wait. Let me go back historically then and look at the history of qatar and what theyve 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 weve had one. I dont know all the history of that transfer, although my understanding is it wasnt particularly good generally. So whats changed . Again, i addressed this here this morning. First of all, you have a new em emir. Weve 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 well 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 were 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 . Ill 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 oneyear 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 gentlemans 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 theyve seen about this with incomplete information, and i certainly think thats 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 im 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. Im a little concerned that this isnt unique. It might be rare, but not all that unique. Do you believe that