a better idea of what our specific modifications might be. they can provide comments and feedback on the specific modifications. so again, i can't really go to task after that. hopefully it would go smoothly and go to a final rule. this is all complicated by the legislation, which if it gets passed, may throw everything into another position. >> we do take seriously the requirements and restrictions of the administrative procedures act with respect to rule making. we certainly do all we can to avoid being thrown in apa jail. we're very committed to continuing dialogue and transparency going forward. final question? if not, i will thank everyone who has taken time out to be in our audience, and a special thanks to todd, elizabeth, joan and evan for serving on the panel, for being here today, and

for all that each of you continues to do. [ applause ] the house rules committee is coming together tonight to meet to consider two bills. one to restrict the environmental protection agency from attempting to define which waters that regulate under the clean water act, and the second bill would condemn president obama for not giving congress advance notice of the prisoner swap to release bowe bergdahl back in may. pete sessions is the chair of this committee. you're watching live coverage here on the c-span3.wú8lyç

the rules committee coming together tonight, 5:00 eastern time, to work on rules for debate for two bills. the house back today after a five-week summer recess. they're working on a number of suspension bills earlier, debating those earlier, including one dealing with higher penalties for i.d. theft and a memorial vote for slaves and freed blacks who fought in the revolutionary war, as well

as a bill for tsunami detection programs. votes over in the house are scheduled to begin after 6:30 eastern p.m. the senate was in today, too, debating a number of issues, and working on one of the longest pending judicial nominees ever in the senate. joe pryor votes on a number of nominees scheduled to start in about 30 minutes.

closed committee will come to order. thank you very much. our star witness has now

arrived. i'm delighted that the honorable bill schuster is here. and i want to welcome everyone back from a month-long reprieve of being home, and working with constituents and doing the things which we all need to do. and we want to welcome you back. do you have anything you want to say today. >> nice to see everybody. >> you can see the three from florida look great. the guy from texas has a big old smile on his face. >> he's always got a smile on his face. >> mike, i saw where a few of the tree leaves began falling in dallas yesterday morning. so fall may be in the air, even though we didn't have any rain to prove it.

[ laughter ] he's befuddled right now. you want to make a special announcement. >> although doc burgess may be at a loss for words, i never am. i want to give a shout-out to two wonderful people here today with us. the first one is lieutenant kristen hahn. she's a graduate of the coast guard academy, served two years in coast guard sector miami. and is now at johns hopkins where she is completing her masters in foreign affairs. thank you. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> and secondly, shawn mcmahon who has completed his masters in international relations at cambridge. the real cambridge over there. sorry. sorry. and is an intern with us. thank you, mr. chairman. it is a delight to introduce these two wonderful young people to you. >> shawn and kristen, we're delighted you're here with us. kristen, thank you for your

service to our great nation. we're delighted that you are here. speaking of stars, we also have the chairman of our committee who is here, the gentleman from pennsylvania has arrived just in time. as always, mr. chairman, as you know, we appreciate you being before the rules committee. rules committee council, not only your feedback to us about the exceptions of the bills, but really about how on an ongoing basis, you're doing a spectacular job to make sure our roads and bridges and highways are -- and waterways, and transportation issues are all taken care of and funded. we're delighted you're here. without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. sorry i was a few minutes tardy. when you were talking about the folks from florida and texas, they always have better color than those from the northeast have. the sun seems to shine down there more. >> it rains on us. >> exactly.

but i appreciate the opportunity to come before the rules committee. and i would want to thank congressman steve sutherland, he's been a leader on water issues since he came to congress, and since his district is on the gulf coast there in florida. his legislation that he's proposed before the supreme court could halt only what can be described an end run by the executive branch around both the legislative branch and the judicial branch of the united states. twice the supreme court has told the administration that there are limits to jurisdiction under the clean water act and they've gone too far in asserting their authority. although it wasn't brought up on the house floor for a vote, there were a number of amendments of appropriations, and when our colleagues controlled both houses, chairman overstar tried to move the same type of bill through the transportation infrastructure

committee, and was not able to do that. i would also argue that the democratic majority twice -- not twice, but on a few occasions were able to stop this from moving forward. while the supreme court keeps ruling against the environmental protection agency, the administration has taken those supreme court rulings and is cherry picking discreet language from them in an attempt to gain expanded authority over new waters. and in some cases, dry land. rather than heeding the directive of the supreme court. it is the responsibility of congress, not the administration, to define the scope of the jurisdiction under the rule making proposed by the administration is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of a presidency that seeks to use brute force, executive action, while ignoring congress and the supreme court. i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we've got to stop allowing this to happen. we have to stop whether it's a republican administration or democratic administration, taking and usurping or ignoring

congress in a unilateral way, by broadening the scope of the clean water act. the federal government's reach into every life will have adverse effects on the building and development of landowners, of our agriculture, state and local governments have a huge concern about this decision, about their lands. this massive federal jurisdiction grab was the subject of failed legislation as mentioned in the 110th and 1evat congress.ç now the administration is trying to achieve this federal power expansion through rule making. the proposed rules supposedly aims to clarify what water bodies are subject to jurisdiction under the clean water act. some could argue it brings clarity. it simply clarifies that all waters and in many cases dry land are subject to federal jurisdiction. regulation of the nation's waters must be done in a matter

that responsibly protects the environment without unnecessary and costly expansion of the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. we can continue to protect our waters without unreasonable and burdensome regulations on our small businesses, farmers and families. mr. sutherland's legislation holds this rule making, ensures current practices are protected, and simply requires the administration to consult with the state and local governments when developing a regulation. i appreciate the opportunity. and again, would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this serious. this bill will stop the executive branch from taking away the constitutional powers, which i believe are here in the house and in the senate and the congress. so this is a serious issue that i think all of us should be concerned about. whether it's a republican or democratic president. this is a piece of legislation that will stop that expansion of executive powers. and thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, being from texas,

we are concerned about water. we're concerned about our -- how we're able to effectively have clean water and manage our resources. we try and work with the epa. we try and work with the corps of engineers. but what we try and do is do that in a balance that would allow all of these regulatory agencies with teq, which is in texas, and other agencies, to be able to work together for the best interests of the state of texas. i would want and expect the same thing in new york. i would want the same thing in pennsylvania. and darn sure would want it in california and other states. i am for the balance. is this bill helping that balance out by allowing the state the opportunity to fully participate? >> absolutely. it maintains the balance. i think if this rule making goes forward, it will put it out of

whack and have states and locals that testified before us, they're very, very concerned about what this is going to do about their ability to manage their land. and i think this notion here in washington that the people of pennsylvania, texas, massachusetts, oklahoma, florida, texas, don't care enough about their water, or their land, to make sure that it's done in an environmentally sound way. i think it's wrong-headed thinking. >> i agree with you. i've heard from lots of people in texas about the balance, about how we as texans will attempt to follow the law as best as possible, but that balance allows these agencies to work together. you also have on the other side private landowners. and private landowners will find themselves, i believe, on the wrong side of fighting the federal government, as opposed to someone that they would know,

someone that they would respect, and somebody they can work with. and there's almost nothing worse than having to go to federal court. it's expensive. it's time-consuming. and it's a disadvantage to an individual private property landowner. can you talk with me about some of the things that you would anticipate that are advantages to that, along that line? >> i think the point you make is correct. the ranch owner, the farmer, the land developer across this country, they're very concerned that they're going to be stopped from developing that land. someone who might want to put a pond in their -- on their farm or backyard, they're concerned that the reach of the eepa, the corps of engineers will come in and stop it and regulate the building op the pond when it does not feed into a navigable waterway. there's great concern out there. and rightly so, that when this -- if this rule making is allowed to go into place, it will expand and it will have a

chilling effect on development of land in this country, and on our agricultural community. >> as a member of the texas farm bureau, long-term member, and a member of the southwest texas cattle raisers association, i hear from my fellow members about how it will also have an adverse reverse effect in that people who are trying to effectively utilize, capture, use water that would be for their own cattle, that would be for their own resources, all of a sudden are going to find themselves under the arm of the federal government. is that true? >> that's very likely to happen. as someone who grew up on a farm, still lives on a farm, family still has a farm, farmers were the first conservationists. a farmer does everything he possibly can to make sure he's protecting the water, the land, the soil. so again, there's great concern out there that somebody in washington's going to tell them how to do something that's going to, as i said, have a chilling

effect on their business. >> i'm delighted not only that you're here, but mr. sutherland is once again pushing this bill. i agree with your statement that people who own their own land, people who live in their own state, have a greater opportunity, should, to love the land, to protect the land, and to be able to use that land as opposed to somebody in washington, d.c. mr. chairman, thank you very much for being here today. i will support this bill. and we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> chauthank you, mr. chairman. i want to tell you, mr. schuster, how much i appreciate you bringing this bill forward and certainly appreciate mr. sutherland for offering it. i can't tell you how many groups i've talked to over the course of the break that had something to say about this legislation. very supportive of it. extremely concerned about the

overreach that, you know, is behind this federal effort to regulate waters far beyond what anybody saw coming. so it's timely. i'm disappointed to see that the president, the administration policy would be that it would be recommended to veto. i think that would be a big mistake for him, quite frankly. if i was the president's political adviser, i would say, don't do this. the state and localities are doing a great job on water. frankly, our private entities in this country, particularly farmers and ranchers, value it as much or more than anybody else. most of our conservation efforts tended to work locally and work up. they weren't federal and worked down. the overreach, you know, by the federal government is extraordinary. it's a good piece of legislation. i appreciate you bringing it forward. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. by the way, tom, good to see you. i'm sure you'll look at me and say you can't wait for the

second weekend of october when you'll be coming to dallas, texas. [ inaudible ]. >> it's good to see my friend. [ inaudible ] always a big day. thank you very much. mr. slaughter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i know you think by now we would be accustomed to bill's telling us the truth. but i can never seem to do that with everything we need to do in the united states, that we're doing it. i have a four-page -- >> it will be in the record. >> the government is not going after dick's water and overflow. but one part i think i need to say here is, this rule making was requested by congress, industry, agriculture, business, hunters, fishermen, and more.

the stakeholders were not consulted, that's not true. this is just a proposal that they made. agencies are seeking public comment. participating extensive outreach. the state and tribal partners regulate the community for small business and general public. so let me put all the myths on this bill. they're saying we can't deal in the truth. i'd like to put that in the record as well as a statement of the administration. >> without objection. >> i have no question. >> i thank the gentle woman very much. >> if i could say two things. >> excuse me. does the gentle woman yield back her time? >> does the chairman like to make a statement? >> yes, the guidelines that came out said that the agencies needed to clarify it. this is not clarifying it. this is changing the definition of it. if you want to change the definition, i firmly believe, let's have this debate in congress. >> i couldn't agree with you

more. but the fact is -- >> just the gentle woman seek time? >> i want to respond. previous to obama, they clarified. obama tried to clarify, he was told by the house that he had to do rule making. he had to do the whole schmere. so here we are. i've never in my life in some of this stuff, what they're saying -- the federal government is going to regulate puddles and water on dry ground. that's actually something that people are putting in about this bill. gaining power over farms and ranches. no. all historical exclusions and chem shons for agriculture are preserved. the proposals does not remove the normal farming exemption. it adds 56 beneficial conservation practices, which are self-implementing. the proposed rule is a meth,

will apply to wet areas and erosion areas on field. water field areas on crop fields are not jurisdictional, and the proposal specifically excludes erosional features. here you are. it's like watching some of these programs in the united states where it led to each one of my constituents to come in in the contrails of jet planes, are spray painted on as mind controllers. i think this falls in the same category. >> thank you. there is a way forward, and that is to get together with the states, to have a say in this, and they're not doing that in this bill. some of what you said i disagree with. but i'll have to leave it at that. >> mr. nugent does not seek time. judge hastings, do you seek

time? the gentle woman from florida does not seek time. the gentleman from -- mr. schuster, thank you very much. we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> i think there's a he said/she said argument here. the bottom line is, i'm delighted you're here. i think people back home who are in our state agencies, and landowners, are worried. and that's why you're here. we'll look forward to seeing you on the floor. the gentleman is now -- >> i'm glad you're here, mr. schuster. you often bring great clarity to what we're doing today. and we'll overlook this one. thank you so much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are now going to move to h-res 644, and i've seen the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mccann none.

i know he will be arriving very quickly. i know also that the ranking member, mr. smith -- >> is on his way. >> -- is en route. we are aware -- >> he should be here by 5:30. >> perhaps what we can do is get our californian to speak with clarity and stretch it out then. welcome to the rules committee. we're delighted that you're here. welcome back after the break. i know that you've been -- >> mr. mckeon? >> i know you've been very busy. the saying goes, i love you, too. we're delighted you're here. in fact, the piece of legislation that you're supporting today is one that comes as a result of a lot of work, a lot of looking back and seeing, i'm sure, a number of things that are disturbing to you. but h-res 644 is what you're here today to talk about. and i appreciate you taking the

time with us. without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith is held up in traffic. >> it won't bother anybody if you talk like a texan and talk a little slow for a minute. >> i have a very, very long statement. and mr. smith will be happy to miss it. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, ranking member slaughter, thank you for meeting aenlded. a resolution offered by mr. ridgeel of virginia, condemning the obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify congress before transferring guantanamo bay detainees out of that facility. i want to thank mr. ridgel on his work on the deeply

disturbing issue. he reached across the aisle for a resolution spops erd by 94 members of the house, including myself, focused on the obama administration's clear violation of statute, passed by the legislative branch and enacted into law by the president. i also want to thank ranking member smith, though he did not support this resolution in its entirety, i appreciate his candor, and his commitment to fostering a thoughtful debate within our committee. this is something that people felt strongly about. but the whole debate was on a very high level and i want to thank him for that. consistent with how rules and our committee's practices, the markup of house resolution 644 was publicly noticed three days in advance, and members were provided the opportunity to submit amendment. the markup was open to the public, and video was streamed

live. after thorough consideration, the resolution passed out of committee with bipartisan support. the administration violated the law, and house resolution 644 articulates this simple message. section 1035 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014 requires the secretary of defense to notify the appropriate committees of congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of any individual detained at gitmo. there are no waivers to this clause, no exceptions, period. yet, on may 31st, at the request of the taliban, and in exchange for sergeant bergdahl who was held by the ha kaqani network, e detainees were sent to qatar. the administration took this

action without notifying congress. this is an obvious violation of law. there can be no confusion on this point. in fact, the nonpartisan government accountability office recently determined that the administration violated the law by failing to notify congress. but also, by expanding funds to carry out the transfers without an appropriation for that purpose. the statutory provision of the nbaa was written and approved by a bipartisan majority in congress, because of genuine concerns that dangerous terrorists were leaving gitmo and returning to the fight against the u.s. or its allies. by requiring the secretary of defense to convey detailed information to congress, the provision is intended to allow members to have a complete understanding of the risks of sending gitmo detainees

elsewhere, and how those risks might be mitigated. in transferring the taliban five without lawfully notifying congress, the administration deprived congress of the opportunity to consider the national security risk that such a transfer could pose, or the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. if congress did not speak strongly now, to condemn such blatant disregard for the law, any future administration may come to believe that obedience to statute is not a requirement to the executive branch. this is intolerable, and for this reason, i support this resolution, and will ask my colleagues in the house to adopt it. on a final note, in considering the rule for consideration of this resolution, i would ask that any potential amendments focus on the administration's violation of the law, and not

the circumstances of sergeant bergdahl's disappearance. the army is currently conducting its investigation, and there will be an appropriate time for members to be heard on this matter. thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. i appreciate the committee's consideration of how resolution 644, and respectfully respect that it issue an appropriately structured rule for the resolution. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. you bring in congressman ridgeel's resolution to the committee is important. i'd like to just see if i can ask a question or two. the administration, as i understand it, was required by statute, by law, to come to the united states house of representatives, at least leadership. i believe that would include you as the chairman of the armed services committee. is that correct? and to the senate?

>> it just says to the congress, which would include the house and the senate. but no member of the congress was informed. republican, democrat, leadership, minority, majority, nobody. but 80 to 90 members of the department of state, the white house, the department of defense, the department of justice weren't informed. >> so the reasoning is, is that we believe that if we're going to work with the white house, we're going to work with the administration, if we're going to be able to carefully understand and be thoughtful leaders with them, which many times our committees on a bipartisan basis are, on an intelligence basis, a foreign affairs basis, and armed services. it would allow our members a chance to be thoughtful and work with the administration, but

knowledge is key, isn't it? >> there was a reason why we passed this. in november of 2011, the administration came to the congress and told us that they had opened negotiations with the taliban, that they were starting to deal with a post-war transfer, and they wanted to start negotiations. and they wanted to let us know that as part of that, they were talking about releasing these five taliban. there was strong pushback from both bodies, both sides of the aisle to this. you know, they have now around 147 detainees at guantanamo. many of them have been vetted and have been approved for future transfer if they can find an appropriate place. these five were not on that list. they were very dangerous

individuals. and when they talked to the congress about it, there was strong reservations against it. in january or february of 2012, the administration came to us, the taliban had opened an office in qatar, and president karzai went ballistic and the negotiations all blew up, and they came in and informed us of the fact and said, before they proceeded any further, they would get back to us. they never did. i think the feeling was that they knew they would have pushback based on the previous experience, and they just avoided it. pretty clear the law stated in fact mr. smith pointed out in a hearing that we with secretary hagel, that when the president signed the ndaa act, with that provision in there, he pointed

out that he didn't agree with that. but the way the constitution works, the way our government works, you may disagree with it, but it's still the law until tested in the court. so while you disagree, you still have the obligation to follow it. and so they just decided to do this. and they did it. and this resolution calls them on it and says, no more. >> well, i think as you've suggested, it's a clear violation of the law. and the problem is, they didn't intend to comply with the law. and the ramifications, in my opinion, there's very little that can be done, because you just don't get back five people. not like a federal judge could order them back. >> well, at some point we may get them back, but it may be on

the other side of a gun. there's very high likelihood, that all five, if not most of them, will enter back into the fray, they're that caliber people. and, you know, it -- we put people in jeopardy every day to go out and protect our freedoms. and to have them go through the process of capturing somebody like this, and then letting them go and having to capture them, or fight them again is, i think, just more than we should ask people to do. >> and that's on the other side, because the law is the violation. we've now been joined by your very dear colleague, my very dear friend, mr. smith. just so you know, you have not had the luxury of hearing the opening statement from mr. -- chairman mckeon. but we're sure that you'll catch up very quickly, so we would like to offer you the

opportunity to make any opening statement. i would defer to the gentle woman to welcome you, if you would choose. would you like mr. mckeon to give any summary or do you think -- >> oh, no. >> without objection. your statement will be entered into the record. >> i'm familiar with the issue. and probably familiar with what the chairman would have said. and i just think it's something that is not necessary to be brought before the house. we had several hearings on the prisoner swap that brought sergeant bowe bergdahl back in exchange for five taliban prisoners from guantanamo. and there's much to be discussed about it. the bulk of it comes down to sort of a policy decision. was it right, was it wrong. and that's a debate that we will often have with the executive branch when they make a decision. the one area of focus is on -- i

forget, i think it was 2013 ndaa -- actually 2014 ndaa, the call for 30 days' notice before any inmates were transferred from guantanamo bay. there's no question the president did not give that 30 days' notice on this transfer. and i have said publicly on a number of occasions, i think he should have. i think congress can absolutely be trusted with that type of information, and i think it was a mistake not to. the focus of this resolution is to basically condemn the president for violating the law. and i think that is wrong. what the president did is he, as countless presidents, i wouldn't go as far to say as everyone, but certainly more than half, have at one time or another have said that under article 2, the president has assertive authority that is contrary to a piece of legislation that has been passed. and the argument is, that article 2, and the president's

national security responsibilities specifically in this area supersedes the piece of legislation that was passed. we have two laws that are in conflict. and they made a choice. and they chose, and felt that the article 2 was paramount. therefore, they believed what they did was legal. and to call out and condemn the president and say that he violated the law is over the top, unnecessary, and further exacerbates the already bad, i would go so far as to say a poisonous relationship that exists between congress and the president for no reason. as i pointed out in committee, many presidents have done this, and we don't have to go back that far in history. president george w. bush did wireless taps, indefinite detentions post-9/11 that were in clear violation of existing legislative law. and he did it, and justified it, in the exact same way that

president obama justified this action. president bush said, article 2 gives me the power to do this. over and above those laws. and certainly, if you're talking about something as strong as warrantless wiretaps, indefinitely detaining people, that is certainly a far more substantial step than doing a prisoner swap in a time of war. there was no resolution of condemnation for any of that out of congress. not even a discussion of it. to pull up this one instance that president obama, making the same argument that president bush and others did, i think is partisan politics, pure and simple. i understand the argument. i think it's perfectly okay to do what i've done and others have done, the president should have given notice, but to call him out and say he violated the law when president bush just before him did the exact same thing repeatedly without a peep out of congress. you know, just sort of makes it clear it has more politics in it

than it should. the argument that notice should have been given is legitimate. the condemnation of going to a piece of legislation that formally calls the president out as a lawmaker, is inappropriate and over the top. and once again, you know, pushes us into a bipartisan place that, frankly, we've been in far too often between congress and the white house. i don't think this belongs on the floor and i don't think the piece of legislation should be put forward. but it is. and we will deal with it accordingly on the floor. i just don't think that it's an appropriate piece of >> mr. smith, president bush did not provide congress, the intelligence committee, with information of, as you suggest, the wiretaps? >> well, the issue -- >> and the people who were being held? because as i recall --

>> that's not the issue. >> no, hold on. hold on. this is my question. >> okay. >> the question is, providing notice to congress. in my opinion, hiding things from congress, not following the law is only the question, as i recall, because there were vigorous debates at the time. and i know we have a member of this committee who sat on the intelligence committee. there was information given, and it was identified with fisa courts and others. but i don't think it was that congress was not provided the information. >> notice is not the issue. >> it's not? >> no. a violation of the law is the issue. >> the violation of the law -- >> let me explain. what this resolution says is it condemns the president for violating the law. >> right. >> now, in this case, the law

was that he was supposed to notify congress. >> correct. >> in the case of president bush, that was not the law that he violated. it wasn't a matter of notifying congress, it was doing warrantless wiretaps on people. it was a matter of doing indefinite detention. it's about violation of the law. certainly not notifying congress can in some cases be contrary to the law and we'll have to deal with it. but it can also be contrary to the law to warrantless wiretap people and indefinitely detain. that's the issue. that's what this resolution is all about. it says he was supposed to notify congress. he didn't. therefore, he violated the law. the argument that this president makes, and that president bush made, and many others is that, no, he did not violate the law. he followed article 2 of the constitution which is a law. >> i'm glad you're here. i think it's apples and oranges. i think that we are here to say that notice was not given to the

congress. and that, to me, that's what this legislation is about. you and i, even at the time vigorously discussed, as the gentleman knows, i held some views about what are the problems that we were having, security problems that we were having. but i believe that the president, while he may have used a justification, information was given and provided to congress. >> but this resolution doesn't just weaken the president for notifying congress. this resolution says the president violated the law. >> you said the administration. >> administration. but back to the issue of, is this just about notice. it's not. it says the administration violated the law. >> spending money that was

unauthorized. i'm delighted that you're here. i'm delighted that you have successfully told us what you believe. i simply disagree and believe that's what we're here today is about the notice to congress. and i am delighted to speak to you. >> it's good to be back. >> and delighted that you came here to be with us today. excuse me, just a moment, please. >> i would like to respond -- >> the gentle woman is recognized. >> i'm glad you're here, too. i think you make some very interesting clarifying remarks. and appreciate very much that you did that. obviously you've said these issues early. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. wood all? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith, you said we'd have to -- the law was -- the president made a choice between two competing laws and we have

to deal with it. what does that mean for us? there are very abstract laws that we pass from time to time. there are very specific laws that we pass, knowing as the chairman laid out in his opening statement, that the release of thinks five prisoners had been a topic of discussion. and a topic of disagreement in the past. so it was specifically added to the ndaa to specifically prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening. >> that's not entirely accurate. >> share it with me. >> what was added to the ndaa was added not about these five prisoners. it was more about the efforts to close guantanamo. they wanted this in the ndaa to make sure that the president didn't start the process in closing guantanamo without giving congress adequate notification that they were transferring the inmates. the ndaa 2014 was not specifically about these five prisoners. it doesn't mean they don't fall within it, but that was not the purpose of what we passed in

2014. it was not more than that. >> mr. chairman? >> not specifically the purpose. this is an issue that we've been fighting on for a number of years. the president's made no secret about his desire to close guantanamo. he's kind of gone around to do different things to make that happ happen. but it probably wasn't the total issue. but it was an issue. and i don't think all of us can get in everybody's mind as to why an issue gets in. the important thing is, it was in the bill. and it was the law. and, you know, we can go back and talk about president bush, or president clinton, or president bush, or president reagan -- the important thing is, that none of you were here when -- well, maybe you were -- when president bush was president.

i was not in this job when president bush was president. it came out in the discussion in the bill that if this were president bush, we probably wouldn't be doing this. my comment was, i don't know. i would hope that we would. because i look at it as -- it doesn't matter what president violates the law. i would hope that we would, as members of the ledge slatgislat, protect the rights of the legislative body. because that's what it -- that's what happened in the constitution. the way i understand it. this guy's an attorney, and he knows a lot more about this stuff. >> mr. woodall, if i could address your broader issue, and that is, when the administration does something like this, does something that congress feels like they have legislated

against, what do we do? i can tell you the history is, we get very, very investigative it. it is the constant separation a resolution. i understand, certainly, congress shouldn't just let it pass. we should mention, hey, we should have done this. but the action of putting legislation on the floor to draw attention to it, again, is not something that happened when president bush was president. and this happened repeat dwli. >> and do you identify the error as bringing this piece of legislation today as opposed to the error being failure to bring this piece to the bush

administration. >> i think that we all wished that we lived in a world that was less partisan. >> it's hard for the american public not to look at this and say it isn't just a coincidence. so, yes, i think the error is that we don't do it in a consistently, nonpartisan fashion. but all this does is it compounds that error, in my view. >> i thought you made a very persuasive case about calling a lawbreaker. he had to choose between two competing laws, he chose to

follow one and not the other. as i read the resolution, it says condemns and disapproved the failure of the obama administration to comply with the taliban. not calling him out as a lawbreaker. folks should have complied. you all know so much more about this than i do. was this an article 2 issue that happened on the spur of the moment? it was an eight hour window to make this thing happen? and notice was it possible that you all had gone back and looked at this? was this a possibilitity for 30 days or more? and, as opposed to exigent

circumstances, that opportunity was missed. >> the president's argument 1 that this was in the works for a long time, certainly. it was, over three years ago. but the point when it became a matter of immediacy is when they finally had a deal and their belief was -- they told us that we were told by the ataris that if this was released, it would nix the deal. if people found out about this publicly, the deal would be off. and they were also -- they've also pointed out that, based on the video, the last proof of life video, his health was in question. they were concerned if this was delayed by weeks, perhaps months, his health could be in

jeopardy. there was a sense of immediacy that we had to get this done, we had to get it done now. now, again, i would personally argue that what they were concerned about was this information being used. i just think that this goes to the basic issue that there needs to be more trust between the administration and congress. i think the president errored by not trusting congress with that information and trusting that it would not be leaked. the administration is going to error on a whole lot of things here and there. does it raise to the level of us putting a resolution of condemnation on the floor of the house. and, as i said, past precedent, when presidents have done things like this that duly affects congress is that we don't do a resolution like this. so that's the argument for immediacy. >> and, if i may on that, i think, as adam stated, this was in the works for a long time. and they've finally admitted to

us that they told 80 to 90 people. they never told us exactly who or how many. so the idea of a leak, you know, thinking that they could tell people in all of these other areas of government, but not a single member of congress, i mean, they didn't tell senator reid, they didn't tell senator finestein, they didn't tell the speaker. it just -- it just pretty well indicates they did it for a purpose. and they were able to keep it among those 80-90 people and not tell a member of congress because there was a reason. they knew that they would have pushback. and that was because of a reason. so how long does it take to make a phone call? maybe they could have -- instead of gfollowing the lawexplicitly,

they could have called senator reid, the speaker, senator finestein just to say, look, that would have shown good faith. and the idea that we leak, you know, they've told us a couple things that are pretty sensitive that have never come out. and, yet, we were told of an attack that we were -- that we were going to do our special forces. they told us about an operation. they carried out the operation. they came back to us later and said for whatever reason, the operation was not a success. it was still classified. we've never talked about it. today, there's a front page story on the wall street george about that. where did that come from? i dwarn tee you it didn't come from a member of congress. it came from somebody at the administration. so, to say that they don't trust us but they trust somebody else

shows a real lack of understanding of what's going obama. on. >> i will say, just -- i think that's valid. we don't know where this leak came from. it could have come from us, it could have come from the administration. members of congress are more likely to leave that the administration officials. however, i forget the senator, it's been a few weeks, but there was one senator when this issue was breaking who, when asked by a reporter, had you have known about this in advance, what would you have done? he told everybody. just stop it from happening. so while i personally think the administration still should have done it, it's not like it was completely outside the real mg of possibility that people who oppose this deal wouldn't try to expose it. now, this senator later walked back and said i didn't mean that -- i don't know what he said by way of explanation. so it wasn't completely crazy of the obama administration to be worried act whether or not congress might leak this, you

know, in an effort to kill the deal. >> i appreciate both of your service. i take no pleasure in being here on this i shall shoe here today, but i do worry as you cite presidents from administrations past, article i and article ii being in conflict. if someone doesn't stand up for article i, history tells us where power will be annotated. it frightens me. i yield back. >> thank you both for being here. although i do think it's kind of unfor chew gnat that this is the first piece of legislation that we're dealing with when we come back from a recess. you know, i think it is overstated and unnecessarily done. perhaps it could have been drafted in a resolution that was less inflammatory -- >> we offered an alternative. >> ewe know, i mean, if you really wanted to send a message to the white house, it would have been in everybody's swres

to try to do something in a bipartisan way. maybe it's because we're close to an election or whatever it is, this is what we're faced with. but since everybody's talking about the importance of preserving our constitutional responsibleties as a body, i just want to remind you all that last week we've already recessed, we all voted for a resolution that i offered basically saying that if there's going to be sustained combat operations in iraq, congress should authorize whether or not we should continue those authorizations. and what the parameters should be. and i think there's no doubt that there have been sustained military come bat operations in iraq. and my guess is, if my view is correct, we're going to have more briefings this week that those operations will continue to grow and expand. and i think there is a role for members of congress. and this is, and if you think that we ought to -- my first

members of congress say we aukt to go in to put ground troops in place in iraq. some have said we have to increase the bombings. some have talked about going into syria and beyond. i mean, whatever. people have opinions on this. but i think what would be really unfortunate is, if, as a body, we would just sit on our hands and let this all unfold and just sit on the sidelines and offer occasional commentary. and so, you know, i would hope that both the chairman and the ranking member would end the discussion with the administration on how we deal with isis, you know, to remind them that there is a role for congress. and, by the way, i will say this about the administration. they have informed us of everything they have done. and they have set up notifications on a regular ba s basis. but with the phrase consistent to the war powers resolution. they have done their job. the question is whether we're going to do our job.

and, you know, that's a question for the leadership. my party is not in charge. your party is. we have to bring these resolutions to the floor. i hope you will use your influence, mr. chairman, with the speaker, to say that this issue of our continued growing involvement in this terrible situation and released, that deserves debate. it deserves our attention. i just offer that because i've been hearing a lot about we have this responsibility. that's one of our responsibleties and i think we ought to take it more seriously than we have in the past. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate ranking member smith and chairman keenan for being here. once again, probably the last time we'll have chairman

mckeenan gracing our presence because he's retiring. >> he keeps saying that, but he keeps dragging us back. >> well, i like ya. i can never get enough of hearing both of you and your opinions. i do want to speak act what mr. mcgovern just said. i'm really interested in regards to what the strategy is has noot been real clear from the president. and so i have a lot of hesitation about whatever we do. we have a lot of troops wac in back in iraq. i think we've talked about that before.

i worry about mission creep and administrations can justify a whole lot of things. and, again, to mr. mcgovern, he point this is out all of the time, we don't pay for it. we put it on a credit card. i do think that's a problem for us in the future. as we move forward. but this issue that we're facing today and i get the past pres dents and all of that. but at what point do you stand up and say come on. i just don't condone bad behavior. just because prior presidents have done it. that's just a terrible position to put us in.

i think it diminishes our responsibleties. at what point do you say enough is enough? it certainly -- i think we should have -- i wasn't here under bush. i would hope and you heard the chairman say you would hope that we take a different view of it if you did the same thing. i would absolutely hope we would. we know that the five guys being released weren't on the short list to ever get out. they were on the long list to stay there until they die. they never made the short list. they would get out. i'm sure the president and folks that knew about it, 80 or 90, said mr. president, you just do what you think is best and don't worry about it. it's always easier to ask for forgiveness afterwards than before doing it.

and i think that's the decision they made. a but i do think it puts -- while the good intentions may be there, it does put future soldiers at risk. we know these five were the worst of the worst. they were the leaders. they weren't the trigger pullers. these guys had some leadership capability. and i think that's probably why they weren't on the list to get released. but when do you say enough? i'm frustrated at a president that would just thumb his nose at congress? when is enough enough? at what point do you say wrap the administration on the puckles so they don't do that again. that's really what this 1. there's no forcible law. nothing is going to happen to him. nothing is going to happen to

the administration. but, i mean, i think this is the right thing to do. at least set the tone for other presidents to know that this could happen to them if their administrations go way outside the law, which is clearly -- he just sign ed it a year before. i mean, clearly, it's not like something that was on a dusty shelf somewhere. this was in his -- he signed it. so when do you say enough is enough? when do you say it's not good enough anymore? >> the issue -- unfortunately, the whole battle between article i and article ii, between the legislative and and he cantive branch, you're laying out sort of a false option. there's no point where you get to say enough is enough. there's no point where congress would rise up the problem would go away and we would stomp it.

the battle is always going to be there no mat ere what you do. i don't know passing this resolution is going to change anything. i cannot imagine that in the future, if an executive, if a president want -- feels compelled that he has to do something that he's going to go oh, gosh, they might pass a resolution condemning me. i don't think it's going to dramatically alter the debate. it's a president i'd like to see stopped, too, by both parties. i think that's arguably a more important one so that we actually are representing the legislative branch and not our party. those things are issues. in terms of concern that i think you and mr. mcgovern and others have expressed well, they're

consolidating more and more power. i will tell you the best thing that congress can do to turn that around is to act just to give you a couple of options on the isis issue, the president has requested authority to do a training for people in syria. congress could make a statement on that. we could pass a piece of lerj slags putting parameters around that. we koild pass an authorization. the way things are set up, it's always going to be difficult. there's one of him and 535 of us. if we started passing legislation, and i know that requires the house and the senate to get together and all of that, that i think is the best way to reassert legislative authority.

we have effectively made arnie duncan the czar of education. he can drive policy all over the country as a policy of that. because we, in congress, haven't passed what we should have passed four or five years ago. so i just say the best thing we can do? act. do our job as legislators. pass laws. passing out a condemnation resolution doesn't change anything. >> if i may, i think that was a fantastic answer to that. there's only one flaw that i saw. and that is that we did act.

in opposition. so what's the point? if we can pass laws and he doesn't want to follow them wharks do we do then? >> i think -- even though, you know, mr. smith, i mean, you have said the president should have done it. it wasn't a law. it wasn't because hechs being benevolent. he should have done it because the law said so. there's been a lot of instances where not ploois, but others have been notified.

that is an obligation that we have. is it the chicken or the egg? i'm not sure what came first, but we certainly are living it today. and it's not a good position for us to be in. it's not a good position to legislate as we move forward. >> if i may, that's not what i'm saying at you will. i'm just saying, if you look at the numbers, as i said, the amount of oversighted that is conducted when it's a president of the opposite party, i don't think i can add it up, it ice just astrono, ma'amically high. you should question that it is

much more aggressively questioned if the president happens to be of the opposite party and that raises doubt, as well, to the legitimacy of the process. >> once again, i appreciate serving with both of you in the armed services and the chairman yields back. >> mr. chairman, personally, i think both representatives they do a tremendous job. i would like to take into consideration the fact that all into consideration the feelings of the family. fortunately, the legislation

does that in some respect to the very last two sections of section five -- six, really. it says the congress expresses relief that the sergeant has returned safely to the united states. this resolution, i agreed with mr. smith,allows, among other things, that the president should adhere to the statutory requirement. i'm also mindful that all sorts of negotiations with -- untold with characters in the world take place with regularity. and always have. it's nothing particularly new, in that regard. but i think the

administration, at least the defense department, set it out in your june 11 hearing when secretary hegel said the following. we complied with the law and we did what we believed was in the best interest of our country, our military and the sergeant. the president has constitutional responsibleties and authorities to protect american citizens and members of our armed forces. that's what he did. we don't leave american soldiers behind. i think everyone here is in agreement that the sergeant was returned safely. and, just for the record, i

don't know all of the facts and a lot of people have said a lot of things and i don't even presume to know what's true. but common sense would tell me that, as an american, and knowing the views of the military and all of us being concerned about the views abroad are glad that this took place. my personal feeling 1 that the sergeant was worth a hell of a lot more than five people. and i understand the dynamics regarding they may very well be dangerous persons, some of the readout on them were their old

men and not likely to be active in war. one could argue both ways. but, that said, i think sergeant, had i been president, i would have notified congress probably about an hour on the 30th day to make sure that i was covering the statutory requirements and give you the 30 days. this is kind of sad that coming off of a long recess, the two measures that we are going to address do not have any potential to become law. and it would seem to me, that with the various conflicts around the world, and, more

specifically, in iraq where all of us have a bind opined at dif times and voted that we would ask the very first committee that's taken up our right under the constitution to give authorization to iraq in iraq. while we were away, senator mccain gave a statement for us to be called back into congress. and on that same day, i wrote a letter to the speak er and to te president indicating that i thought congress should be ca called back into session. i think it's much more grave than this measure that you bring

here today if we do not have that dialogue as needed. i would like my friends to call for a strategy. and then put a vat jill on the floor yourself. and figure how complicated this measure is. the other thing is, if i were operating as a terrorist, i would look at the news and gather everything i can because you tend to put everything in the streets all of the time. and i maintain that that's a mistake on our behalf. it is important for us to have knowledge. and, certainly, here in congress, it's important for us to not continue to allow presidents to gatt ere up under themselves powers that are

relegated to those of us that are in congress as well as the separation is required. and i hear all of these people running around saying the president needs a strategy and i don't hear what their strategy is. if you're dealing with this complicated a matter, i've heard people repeatedly say that we need to arm the kurds, i guess they're talking about the murder. i'm not sure they're talking about the pkk. i'm not sure that they're talking about the implications of turkey as a nato ally. but, gentlemen, we are in a very

complicated world. it's not enough to come up with blind statements and accusations and blind statements about activities of the president of the united states. it is not just one matter that we need to attend. it is several. and it is not just one country that we need to address. i've asked both speakers, i've

asked pelossi and boehner. they have no idea about what islam is, what radical islam is, what a khalifad is and they throw out all of these names without knowing all the tribal circumstances that exist. it's ridiculous for us to sit here and allow for 435 of us to make policy when 35 of us couldn't give people today a paragraph distinguishing or comparing and contrast iing she and sunnis. six years i said that there were christians who were refugees in iraq and it was ignored until recently. and i found that passing strange in this institution that we allow for those kinds of things to take place. this is a very complicated situation that we're dealing with. it has all sorts of

ramifications. a long time ago, i argued along with john mertha, that we should pull back to the horizon in iraq. and then, with the help of iek skelton and i found out that we had bases there. and i felt strategically, dealing with iran down the line, that we should have kept two enduring bases there. and now we hear the status of forc forces agreement argument and then to look at where we are without having done the things necessary after having lost all of those soldier's live that is we won't know about until way off into the future.

this resolution isn't doing anything. i guess the best thing we can do is get the hell out of here and go on and have the election in november. >> the gentleman has no request from time. >> yes, mr. chairman, just a couple of clarifications, chairman, if you don't mind. when this occurred, i've got to tell you, i was stopped by more constituents who were concerned. they didn't understand what was

happening. they felt there was a lack of control. to the extent that you can tell us here, is someone watching these five individuals? what type of control do we have over them? >> the fife individuals are in guitar. they are there for a year. they are, as i understand it, under house arrest. after a year, they will be free to go. it was just a prisoner exchange. the one thing i will say, they were -- some of them were military, some of them were on

the taliban side. while they certainly are five dangerous people of the, i don't know, tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and pakistan who are part of the taliban, the five jobs that these guys have were filled by somebody else. and when these five come back, it's not like those jobs were sitting empty for 12 years wait r for them. how much do these five appreciably increase the capable ty and risk that come from the taliban. these are five bad guys. no doubt about it. but when you go through what the president was trying to go through, a balance of risk to bring the sergeant back. the calculated risk was these five guys do not appreciably increase the risk of the taliban.

we value life far greater than our enemies. when you want to get one of your own back, you have to make a deal. and it's not easy. it reiss not like the taliban hasn't been doing anything for the years that they were gone.

>> mr. chairman, do you agree? >> the main point, as i see it, these guys have been there a long time. they work with people who vet them. they are people who make decisions about should they be released or not. and these five went there all of that process and did not make the list to be released. it's kind of like mr. hasting was saying. none of us hereanx7@7 l know a those five.

there are some top leaders in this fight that we're stimengaged in that spent time in guantanamo. only time will tell what these five do. i think everybody is happy that the sergeant is home. that's not even part of the debate. but if one of these five cause the death of someone in the future, how do we go and tell those parents.

i guess this will go on for the next couple of years. i think what it boils down to, this congress, passed in the congress and the senate that said don't do anything without giving us 30 days notice. the president did and we're trying to take him to task for it. hopefully, this would be the point.

i can only hope that, we really don't know. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you one thing. i've always heard the statement that we don't negotiate with terrorists. is that still operational? when they came and testified to us, they said we didn't negotiate with terrorists. >> football season just started. i think probably every one of them has an agent. the agent negotiates with the play r for the team management. the president doesn't get involved in that, he has a general manager. the general manager can say i didn't ne forbuate with that player. okay, you negotiated with his

agent. i think everyone understands how that works. people can decide that on their own. i do think it put us in a position to where we have now negotiated with terrorists. >> are there potential risks to that change in strategy? >> precedent gets set and then you have to deal with it. much like what mr. smith said, this has happened before. i think i learned at a very young age, two wrongs don't make a right. and while i won't be here, i would hope that whoever is the chair and ranking member of this committee, whatever party, if the president violates the law,

you take action. >> as i said, you know, sort of arguing over two different pres dents. one is the argument of legislative branch power versus executive branch power and the on going battle between those two branchs on a wide range of issues. we will have to deal with that. in my opinion, if you asked the public which they're more concerned about, congress being relentlessly partisan, that precedent is the one that's going to ramp up enormously over the course of the last 20 years. and that's precedent that thep. public is concerned about, too.v

that if we could step back from that and assume that the president doesn't overstep his bounds in a nonpartisan way, i feel that is the precedent in the wrong going direction. >> by that, you're not inferring that the president is never partisan? >> i think that the partisan ship goes both ways. i'm not going to say that at all. i'm just saying, congress, clearly, may have done this. the point was made that the congress did act and the president overrode it. >> i think it's based upon where

you stand on the issues -- >> i completely and totally agree with you. and i have no doubt that there are people who disagree with the president here. and i would ask the chairman if that sometimes, principle is not the only issue. that sometimes it is a matter of partisan advantage and the rather clear recognition that the weaker the president is, the stronger the political opportunities are for the opposite party. so regrettably, that, too, happens. and the chairman pointed out, the president does part san things and all of that.

i'm saying it is a problem that we need to address. >> i appreciate both of you being here today. we did find it was a better meeting because of both of you and i know both of you work together really well. and the gentlewoman from new york appreciates it, too. so thank you very much. i now call uch the gentlewoman from texas. who has patiently been sitting here with the knowledge that we have started votes now. >> thank you for your court sills, i will be enormously brief. i noticed that the polling numbers have accelerated by the american people who believe that isis and want the president to

act on their behalf. i raise that in the next 48 d speaking to the american people, tomorrow, he will be engaging with the house leadership on the senate leadership and we are going to be debating if it is tompl, either tomorrow or wednesday, a condemnation of a matter that could be resolved with conversation. i just want to cite these two points and then ask you to consider my amendmented.ç

again, the invasion of iraq was based upon the idea of weapons of mass destruction and the bush administration immediately acknowledged that that was not true and then there was instances of sadham trying to bayou rain yum in niger and that was found not to be true. they were, in essence section 10 pa. this language in this resolution specifically cite it is obama

administration, which, in essence, is president obama. these are dastardly comments from provisions 1 through 5, which, in 5:00 chewty, really undermine the integrity of this institution. we are better than this. we're better than waving a document that wants to fuss with the president. i would use a stronger world, but i want to respect the institution. it expresses relief. an alternative could be that we resolve that all presidents must adhere to the 30 day notice rule.

many of you realize it was an operation to secure the sergeant. you could make that point that they thought they would be in danger. my amendment would be to strike all porlgszs except section 6. do we want the visuals of debating this on the floor of the house in the 24-48 hour period what has now come to the american people. i just want to finish on this note. the president did engage on syria. there were any number of meetings, everyone face-to-face

meetings with many members of congress and ultimately, congress' lack of interest to vote to be on the floor of the house to move for a greater military action. that did not occur. i think the president has made efforts. it's siems our strategy that cannot be a public statement. but i just hope that there would be some thought of the timing on this resolution. i'm going to focus on the timing of the midst of the president with congress on this crisis and his message to the american people on wednesday. why do we have to have this legislation? my amendment, i think, is an adequate response to eliminate ing it had harshness of this

resolution. does anyone on the democrat side have any requests coming up? any republican? thank you very much for being here. very clear. very thoughtful and we appreciate it. this now closing the hearing for hr rest 644 and will be in motion? >> i move the committee grant hr 507 a if waters over protection act of 2014 a structured rule.

and an opponent shall not be subject to demand. the rule provides one motion to recommit. condemning and disapproving of the obama administration's fall h÷úqx>yma administration's fall

the rule provides that the preamble recommended by the committee on armed services now printed shall be considered as adopted and the resolution shall be considered as read. >> we've now heard the motion. is there any debate? seeing none, those in favor, aye? those opposed, no? the ayes have it. >> ms. fox, ms. fox, hi. mr. bishop. mr. cole? mr. cole. hi. mr. whital? hi. mr. nugent? hi. mr. webster? ms. ross lightening.

mr. mcgovern? mr. hastings. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, aye. >> the motion is agreed to. and the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, will be handling this for republicans. judge hastings will be there for the democrats. earlier, i could not recognize celeste west who came back. celeste was over here, former long term staff member ot rules committee.

>> no, ma'am, i don't believe so. we are going to allow the leaders to get together and find out what transpires there. i want to thank everybody. we've now fibbished our work for the day.

>> members consider two bills, one dealing with the epa's regulation of u.s. waters and a bill condemning president obama for not giving congress advanced notice of the prisoner exchange that occurred back in may.

e. >> aver noon, everybody. i apologize for the lengthy delay. a lot of news to get through. >> the president said that the strategy he'll announce is going to look like a con-terrorism. can you explain a bit more about a what that mean sns. >> what the president also mentioned is his intention to give a speech on wednesday to discuss some of these issues. i don't want to get out ahead of that speech. but let me try to give you a sense of at least what the president is thinking.

as the president confronts the situation, he puts at risk concerns. the president, thus far, in iraq, to strike isil is principally motivated to protect american personnel, including our embassy and our consulate in iraq. that's the focal point of our operation. there are some specific counter terrorism in there, as have been for a long time. when the president is making these dss, particularly as it relates to an organization like isil, what he's focused on is the safety and security of the american people and the threat that this extremist organization principally poses to the

homeland is in the form of foreign fighters. individuals with western pass port that is have traveled to the region and taken up arms to fight alongside isil. there's significant concern about the idea that some of these individuals may try to travel back to the west using their western pass ports and carry out acts of violence here. so as it relates to our principle concern, the 39 is concerned about the threat of terrorism. and that is why the other counter terrorism is in another reference. one of the things the president mentioned in his interview is that we have seen the united states effectively under the lead i recall ship of this president and thanks to the courage and service of our men and women in uniform and the intelligence agencies, we've worked very effectively to defeat terrorists who pose a threat to the united states.

that is true of the success of our efforts to desiccate in the border region. it's also true in some of the i counterterrorism efforts in yemen and smally and other places. the president is trying to dem trait there's a track record. in terms of evaluating what the president's chief concern is and what our solution looks like, it is similar to some of the other counterterrorism issue that is the president has ordered and have been successfully executed by military and with the support and inconjunction with our allies around the world. >> some of the other

counterterrorism issues, people think about this in the context of yemen, :áqsomalia, that's no what the president is talking about, right? >> well, the president has been engaged in an effort, he gave a speci speech on this this year. our, his desire and our collective effort to try to bring more transparency. >> that's one type of counterterrorism mission. that's not the type of mission he's talking about here, right? >> each of these situations is different and each has their own unique threat and the president's been pretty clear about what this about what he's not, the president's not contemplating the? deployment o combat boots on the ground to deal with this situation. he's talking about the -- governments looking for the

support and the effective governments of the iraqi central government to con toronto this threat. is it possible there might be some clandestine efforts underway here? i'm sure that's the case and i'm sure that's something won't be in the position to talk about if they do, what the president is talking about is something he's laid out you know, a couple of times and will have the opportunity to talk about at more length on wednesday. >> has he made a decision on whether air strikes should send into syria? >> what the president has said and he said this again in the interview he conducted over the weekend. is his willingness to go where ever is necessary to strike those threatening americans and that the, has been true in a range of oir instances to the extent there are parallels here. the president ordered this

military mission to go over osama bin laden and that was sort of the president fulfilling a campaign promise. i believe a speech in the summer of 2007, where he talked about his commitment as commander in chief to deploys american resources where ever necessary to protect the american people and i think that is a useful guideline as he tried to assess the president's thinking about some of these issues. >> if he's willing to go after groups that threaten america, where ever they are and say isis could pose a threat to americans and they're in syria, has he made a decision to go inside syria? >> in the president's made a decision, i'm sure that's to rise to the level, but what i'm trying to do is provide insight into the president's thinking on this position. it's a valiant effort. >> the president also said --

for action on this plan, but has been clear this is a long-term thing. how did those two elements decide this is going to go on for more than just a couple of months. what does he need from congress? >> the administration has demonstrated in a pretty trans parent way, our commitment to closely consult wg members of congress as we pursue these priorities. the president has convened a couple of meetings where leaders in congress to discuss these issues before they went away on their august recess. the president has invited the four leaders of congress, the democratic and republican leader of both the house and senate, to come to the white house tomorrow to discuss some of these issues and to follow up on the successful nato summit the president attended in wales the end of last week, so the president is committed to intensive consultation between

the administration and congress as we consider some of these very difficult and high stakes questions. in addition to that, this is something the president has long believed as he's confronted different national security questions. the president believes when the american people through their elected representatives can demonstrate a united front, that that's beneficial to our foreign policy. that sends a clear signal to people around the world, the american people are united in pursuing and accomplishing a specific foreign policy or national security priority. so, you know, the president in his interview with chuck todd at nbc was clear that he does believe that he has the authority to quote do what's necessary to protect the american people. but he went on to say i think it's important for people to understand what the plan is, to

have buy in, to debate it and that's why we've been consulting with congress throughout. there will continue to be an effort to keep an open line of dialogue between the administration and leaders in congress as we move on this important foreign policy priority. >> dialogue, but no need to ask for authorization, is that correct understanding of that? >> i think the way the president described it is he believed it is important for congress to understand what the plan is, to have buy in, to debate it and engage in kinds of consultations that m is leading. the president is not in a position where he sets the legislative floor calendar for the house and senate. also in a position of consulting and trying to be as candid as

possible. what he's contemplating and what the policy implications are he's prepared to make. and it's important in the mind of the president for congress not to be a partner in these decisions they have a solemn responsibility to the american people to be engage nd this process, but ultimately, this is responsibility to make the kinds of decisions related to our military that rest on the shoulders of the president. >> also said that there might be a need for more resources. can you address what kind of money requests or funding requests he might have >> i don't have any sort of fundinging requests to preview at this point. i would remind you in a speech that i believe you covered, jeff, when the president traveled to west point, he talked about his interest in the kreegs of this counterterrorism

partnership fund. this is a core component of the president's strategy for dealing with issues like this and others around the globe. that is additional resources to build up effective partners so that when the united states has that we have well equipped partners. ultimately, we need to get into a position where the united states is not solely responsible for dealinging with these kinds of emerging threats. that we would be able to work closely with partners around the globe, partners who have better knowledge of the local politics, of the local terrain. who in some cases, can prevent some of these cases from becoming so severe. that is one example of a funding request the president has made to members of congress that i think they have talked about,

but not voted on. it would strengthen this president and future presidents for dealing with situations like this. move around just a little bit. zeke. >> mentioned earlier that the president's long standing commitment to counterterrorism, but the assassination of al wa hi and 100 american citizens who are fighting alongside isis. and could come back and pose a threat. i was wondering if the president has sought any sort of legal -- using whether drone strikes or direct air strikes on potentially american citizens. >> well, i don't have any sort of policy announcement to make along these lines. the administration has sought to provide insight to the american

public and journalists and the decision made to threats in somalia and yemen. as it relates to isil more generally, we are concerned about the threat that is posed by these foreign fighters. it is believed my biso ed by so that there are dozens of individuals with american passports who have traveled to the region to fight. there are some reports that indicate that there is a risk that those individuals could return to the west whether it's the united states or one of our allies, using a western american passport to travel, you know, either completely unimpeded or relatively unimpeded in a way that poses a threat to the american people and