>> thein coordination with kurds as well as the iraq he army. so that we can collect the intelligence that is necessary as you prepare to go after them in syria. but the president has done something more. he has started to put together a coalition realizing that the american people have no appetite

for american boots on the ground in syria, to put together a coalition so that maybe the free syrian army, maybe other members of the arab league, maybe some other members of nato would participate, but the way we drew aboutesolution, it talks that there would not be a inurring military presence the implying of an american army on the ground. >> when we said our special operations in there to try to

rescue the two american journalists that subsequently met such a brutal and uncivil in in their beheading. >> american boots have been there, and we might need vessel operations kinds of missions in the future. we might need forward air observers actually on the ground so there is flexibility in this resolution. i want to say that if there is of the with any doubt intent of isis, that have made it so clear, nonpoint taking the lives of these journalists, the second one of which was from my state of florida. of whatheir statements they intend to do, setting up an , the leaderphate

caliph,ls himself the or religious leader, but they have also said that they will not stop until the black flag of isis is hanging and flying over the white house. so their intent is pretty clear. so going to have to deal with them, not only in iraq but elsewhere, it's going to be sooner than later. it's not going to be a one or two day operation. the american people, as the president has already indicated, this is going to be a long-term kind of operation. that the united states is the one that has to

lead the coalition. to get this in front of -- front and center what we need to do i have filed and it is inserted as part of the record, the resolution i have offered to authorizationegal from the congress for the president to strike isis in and to do as the president has said to bring it to a successful conclusion to stop this arendt this, uncivil, extraordinary kind of inhumane behavior that is being illustrated by these folks. mr. president, i yield the floor.

>> meanwhile center tim came to the center for today and said president obama needs all three authorizationeeds from congress before he takes action against isis. >> is to president, one month ago the president initiated an air campaign against isil in iraq. terroristdangerous organization committing atrocities against thousands of people including american hostages and the strong american response to include military action is certainly warranted. airhe first month of the campaign, two expeditions for the mission were given by the president. we began with a mission for military purposes and a need to protect american mse personnel. >> despite a pledge not to place american boots on the ground, more militant -- american

military personnel have been deployed as advisers there now. -- to bring before congress and the nation a clear plan for defeating isil. i am supportive generally of the limited steps taken us for while congress is in recess to slow the momentum of isil. i suspect i will hear a comprehend the strategy tomorrow. i'm pleased that iraqi political developments are now moving to form a unity government and iraq governers must inclusively. i'm heartened to hear reports that the administration has worked hard to find a number of nations willing to partner with america to deal with the isil threat including nations in the region. the u.s. cannot be a police force for region unwilling to police itself.

the u.s. should not bear the sole burden of defeating a terrorist organization that poses a more imminent threat to many other nations than the threat it does to america. i look forward to the president's address and i'm confident that a well thought out plan against i still -- againstisil. -- a nationdent of of laws. i rise to urge the president not just to inform us of what he plans to do but to follow the constitution and seek congressional approval to defeat isil. i do so for two reasons. first, i don't believe the president has the authority to go on offense and wage an open -- open-ended war on isis without approval. in making the momentous decision to authorize military action, we owe it to our troops who risk their lives to do our collective job and reach a consensus supporting the military mission that they have order to complete. let me first deal with the legal

issue, the constitution is clear it is the job of congress, not the president, to declare war. some parts of the constitution frankly are vague and open to interpretation. process, what is cruel and unusual punishment. some parts of the constitution are clear and specific. old toe to be 35 years be president of the united states. the power to declare war is a clear and specific power. it's an enumerated power congress in article one. it is additionally illuminated by james madison. jeffersonr to thomas after the constitution was ratified, madison explained the war powers clause in article one. our constitution supposes what the history of all government demonstrates, that the executive is a branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it and has accordingly with studied care best to the question of war in the legislature. so a president must see

congressional approval for significant military action. as commander-in-chief, president can always take steps to defend america from imminent threats. the framers understood this. but even those instances they intended that the president returned to congress to seek ratification of those actions. the constitution seriously, as we pledged to do when we take our oaths, we must follow the command that the president must come to congress to initiate major military action. during a congressional recess, president obama began a new isil.ry action against he has indicated that it may continue for an extended time. to go on offense in order to degrade the ability of isil to harm.

humbly and respectfully, i deeply disagree with that assertion. the president's article to power allows him to defend america from imminent threat but it does not allow him the ability to wage an offensive war without congress. the 2001 authorization for use of military force crafted by president bush and congress ended days after the number nine/11 attack limits the power isil did not form until 2003. president bush sought a broader at that time. had congress granted such a siler, the war against i would have been covered by that aumf. but congress rejected giving the president power to wage war without additional congressional

approval. this would fly in the face of the clear congressional action rejected in the preemptive war doctrine. congress passed the second aumf in 2002 to allow the military action to topple the regime of saddam hussein. american troops left iraq in 2011 and the administration had testified recently before the mf is nowat this au obsolete and should be repealed. provides no support for military action against isis. the iraq he government has asked for our help, which solves international sovereignty questions, but that request does not create its own legal justification. finally, the 1973 war powers resolution creates a set of rules for presidential action and congressional response in matters of war.

has been widely viewed as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, but even accepting its validity and the president, like most, almost certainly does not accept it 60 day limitation on this article to powers, it does not change the basic constitutional framework on the legislative branch. i believe that a reluctance to engage congress on this mission against isis is less due to any legal analysis concerning broad executive power than to general attitude held by residents that coming to congress on a question like this is too cumbersome and unpredictable. that attitude is shared on the hill by some who view questions of military action, especially in a difficult circumstance like this, as politically explosive and best avoided if at all possible. and mythe president colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process.

there is no more important business done in the halls of congress than weighing whether to take military action and send service members into harms way. if we have learned nothing else in the last 13 years, we should have certainly learned that. coming to congress is challenging, but the framers designed it to be, and we all pledged to serve in a government known for particular checks and balances between the branches of government. remember in the days after nine/11, whose anniversary we presidente this week, bush brought to congress a request for military action. the ruins of the pentagon and the world trade center were still smoking and certainly the american public would have supported the president on strong and immediate executive action in that circumstance, but president bush knew that the nation would be stronger if he came to congress to seek authority. similarly, president bush came to congress prior to initiating military action in iraq. so many painful lessons were learned in the aftermath of that

authorization, but it is important to remember that it was not unilateral executive decision but congress was included and voted to support the mission. i believe it would be a grievous mistake, after 13 years of war, to have offered a new strategy of taking prolonged military action without bothering to cease congressional approval. i particularly worry about the precedent it would create for future presidents to assert that they have the unilateral right to engage in long-term military action without the full participation of the legislative branch. as president obama said laster when announcing he would come to congress to seek military authorization to combat military weapons in theory, this is not about who occupies the office at any given time, it is about who we are sick country. i believe the people's representatives must be invested in what america does abroad. mr. president, i focus my remarks on the legal reasons for the president to engage congress sil.ny plan to defeat i

let me conclude by offering an additional reason about why the president and congress should work together to craft a suitable mission for this important effort. when we engage in military action, even only an air campaign, we ask our troops to risk their lives and their health, physical and mental. of course we pray for their complete safety and success, but let's be realistic enough to acknowledge that some may die or or be captured, or cvs things happen to their comrades in arms. who come home physically safe may see our do things in war that will affect them for the rest of their lives. the long lines of people waiting va appointments are hoping to have their benefit claims adjudicated are proof of this.

short, mr. president, during a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. when compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate with congress about whether military action is a good idea? how much of a sacrifice is it for member of congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? face theonal members political cost of debate on military action, and are service members where the human cost of those decisions. ,f we choose to avoid debate avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives.

so i have a firm willingness to offer support to well crafted military mission. i believe the american public and this congress will support such a mission. it is my deepest hope that with the opportunity to vote on the mission in the halls of congress , as our framers intended, and is our troops deserve. >> campaign 2014 coverage tomorrow night features senate candidates from south dakota participating in their first televised debate. they are vying to fill the seat being vacated are retiring senator tim johnson, democrat rick weiland will face two independent candidates. the republican candidate, governor mike brown, has declined to participate. we will have live coverage at 8 p.m. eastern wednesday on c-span2. >> you're just a few the comments we have recently received from our viewers. the'm going to comment on author jason riley on his book

called "please stop helping us to go -- please stop helping us peer go he backed up his conclusions with facts. i would like to hear more about how he feels we can change the can lifto that people themselves out of poverty and keep on ascending within the system. >> last thursday night when they had the election returns they had them stretch all the way across the bottom. these old tv set that people you with the tubes that cannot read it even in resume or anything else. i appreciate if you go back to where you stretch it out, a different font or do something where people can read the thing. >> i always like to comment and

say how much i appreciate c-span's efforts to get important information like the ebola hearings and other important topics out to the public. the news agencies are not doing nearly enough and we really appreciate c-span providing this information, the testimony on so many important issues. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or you can send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. today the house passed a resolution condemning the obama administration's decision to release five taliban prisoners in exchange for army sergeant

bowe bergdahl. here is the house debate on the resolution. it is an hour and 10 minutes. expressing national security concerns over the release of five taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. resolution to house amendments are adopted and the resolution is considered as red. the gentleman from california. and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith will teach control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. i ask unanimous

consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend the remarks and to include extraneous material. without objection, so ordered. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i much consumed. >> i rise in support of house resolution 644, resolution condemning the obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify congress before transferring individual detainees from guantánamo bay. him forlike to thank his leadership on this deeply troubling issue. he worked across the aisle to offer a bipartisan resolution sponsored by 94 mirrors of the .ouse including myself focused on the obama administration's clear violation of statute as by the legislative branch and enacted into law by the president.

i would also like 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. the administration violated the law and house resolution 644 articulates the simple message. it passed out of the armed services committee with a bipartisan vote. 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. yet on may 31 at the request of the taliban and and in exchange for sergeant bergdahl who was

held by the haqqani network, the administration sent five senior taliban leaders from gitmo to qatar. the administration took this action without notifying congress. this is an obvious violation of the 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. expending funds to carry out the transfers without an appropriation for that purpose. provision was written and approved by a bipartisan majority in congress because of genuine concerns that dangerous terrorists were leaving gitmo and returning to fight against the u.s., or its allies. our 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 risk of sending gitmo detainees elsewhere and how those risks .nd be mitigated in transferring the taliban and five without lawfully notifying congress, the administration to nine 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 does not speak strongly now to condemn such latent disregard for the law, any future administration may come to believe that obedience to statute is not a requirement for 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. forn, i thank mr. rijo

introducing this important bipartisan resolution and i urge my colleagues to adopt it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> there are two issues important to this piece of legislation. the first is the chairman mentioned is the legality of this. however, he is wrong in the idea in saying that this is clear on its face. there is considerable debate as to whether or not the president's actions were legal. the president and secretary of defense have stated unequivocally that they believe they acted within the law. this is actually an issue that comes up repeatedly between the legislative and executive branch. it's been coming up for a couple hundred years now and the administration's position is that they acted in accordance with their article to commander-in-chief authority in

the interests of national security and bringing one of our soldiers home. it is their position that article two of the constitution, which is a law, supersedes the piece of legislation that was referenced about 30 days notice that was passed. therefore their actions were legal. the first thing to understand about this is that this is in no way unprecedented unsure if you went back and examine the history, just about every president at one time or another did something contrary to a piece of legislation or a law because they felt article to required them to do so. it superseded the legislation in question. we don't have to go back very ar. george w. bush repeatedly took actions that were repeatedly in violation of the law. heauthorized wiretapping, authorize government attention. both those issues were clearly contrary to statutory law, burr president bush asserted his article to authority.

this is a long-running debate between the executive and legislative rent. never before has the legislative out to center the president. the president did not violate the law. you follow the law consistent with what storage but -- with what george w. bush and others did. if assembly part of a long-range debate between the legislative and executive branch. i feel the president should have given us 30 days notice. i do believe that. the reason they didn't is they were concerned that the information would be. this is a very sensitive negotiation and they were told that if information is leaked, it would kill the deal and they were deeply concerned about sergeant bergdahl's health. if any further delay happen, that he might not survive his

current incarceration with the taliban. that was their reason for doing it. while i have said and will continue to say that i think he should have given us that 30 days notice, i think congress has proven repeatedly that we can in fact keep a secret. we have been told about a number of sensitive wing's and not reveal that information. it is worth noting the president is completely without reason for that. said i -- initially would have let people know, absolutely. i didn't think it was a good idea and i would have done everything i could to stop it. the senator walked himself back from those remarks and said he wouldn't, but initial reaction shows the president and the administration not completely out of bounds and thinking their ability to bring sergeant bergdahl home might have been jeopardized by allowing congress to know that. i think we have proven ourselves capable of keeping secrets and they should have given us 30

days notice, but on the legality is perfectlys consistent with what a large number presidents have done in the past. to call this president out specifically is wrong, which brings us to the second issue. that is the partisan nature of this body. andettably if you go back look at instances where the president is of one party and the congress is of another, that is when investigations are off the charts. somehow when both the president and congress are in the same party, we don't have anywhere near the investigation for actions on and on. that regrettably reflects the deepening partisan rift in washington dc, and that ultimately is what i think this legislation reflects. it simply an opportunity for republican congress to take a shot at a democratic president. if it was more than that, then back 10 years ago when president george w. bush was violating all manner of different statutory articulateds

article two powers, then we would have had something out of this congress that said don't do that. we didn't. all we had was silence. unfortunately, with at least the public to believe is that this is a partisan exercise, and we need fewer partisan exercises, not more. president should have given us notice, he should have given us 30 days, but for this to be the first or the second issue since we had the water bill just before this, you think of all the economic and national security challenges and everything going on out there, once again the public just shakes their head and says here we go again with another partisan exercise. i think this piece of legislation is unnecessary and i do not feel the president violated the law. he had a different interpretation of it, as many presidents before him have. with that, i reserve the balance of my time.

asked the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i must respond to a couple of points made by my good friend from washington. we agree on more than we disagree on. this item we disagree on. it seems to me that his main argument is that because other presidents have done it, it's ok for this president to do it. in other words, two wrongs make a right. i don't think that is the point. i think that it's some point, you have to draw the line, and that's what we're doing right now. secondly, he said that the president said that he really believed he wasn't breaking the law. prisons are full of people that say they don't think they broke the law, but some judge things instance,and in this until you take the matter to the court, it is the law, and even know he's the president of the united states, he did break the law. this time i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague and

lead cosponsor and the one who has from day one provided the leadership on this issue, the gentleman from mr. -- general and from virginia. >> the general one from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chairman for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. cosponsorsoriginal for standing with me in this. i respect my colleague, the ranking member smith. my respect for him is not diminished by the fact that we have strong different views on this matter. i don't share the ease with which he has accepted the presidents refusal to follow the law and i reject outright, and i must do so in this chamber, the assertion that this is partisan. it is not partisan. it is -- an increasing number of men and women from a very diverse audience in my district

are deeply troubled the president oscar continued pattern of going outside of the law and executive overreach. this is an example that hits home in our district, which is on to more men and women in uniform than any other of the congressional districts. so the increasingly are asking me this question, what is congress doing about this? this resolution today is a direct manifestation of my duty and i believe our collective duty to hold the president accountable for breaking the law. again the ease with which some broken thehat he has law, that is not shared by the government accountability office , an independent nonpartisan agency that this summer found that in releasing taliban senior commanders in fact the administration did break the law. that's really not in dispute. if we don't hold the administration accountable for this, who will?

that is what we do. making sure the balance of power is adhered to. i think it's important that we look at who was released. among those released is the taliban deputy defense minister. the president himself isnowledged that there absolutely the possibility of the senior taliban commanders returning to the battlefield. they can be released by the government of qatar in less than nine months in the president has more confidence in the government of qatar then the american people do. congress's clear objection in 2011 on the very a bipartisans, message was sent clearly to the administration, don't release these prisoners. it's not in the national security interest of the united states, yet the administration did so. despite the damage is done to our policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and despite the

increased risk this brings to americans, i believe on the battlefield in afghanistan the administration plowed ahead. it was far more than unwise, it was unlawful. i will close with this. i really didn't want to bring this to the floor. i know we have plenty of partisan bickering around here but i look for someone else, maybe another member bringing something to the floor and could not find it. us.id it falls to i appreciate the ranking member meeting with me and the conversation we had about this matter. we hold different views on this but i believe it is best for our nation and our country and for our men and women in uniform that this is passed today. i urge my colleagues on both side of the out to vote in the affirmative. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from california

reserves. fixed i yield myself to minutes just to respond quickly. did not address the constitutional issue. they did not address article two. i simply said a plain reading of the statute 30 days notice was required and 30 days notice was not given. that is very plain. the statute itself is really not in question nor that the president didn't give the notice required. the question is when the president has the authority to go in a different direction from statute. as was mentioned, that happened many times, most recently with george w. bush and wiretapping and a number of other issues. the gao did not comment on that specific issue. the second thing i would say is we are not really arguing that two wrongs make a right. we're arguing about whether it was law in the first phase.

president george w. bush was absolutely wrong to have taken those actions that he did and contrary to statute, he did something that was illegal and were very mad about that and as long as were talking about it we should mention the fact -- i haven't heard anyone say that because i think the implication is on that side they didn't think was wrong. that is the issue. president toor the do something he believes is in the national security interest of the country under his article to authority. i think most people would say sometimes yes, sometimes no. it's a debatable issue. it's not a matter of saying two wrongs make a right. it's a matter of arguing whether or not it was wrong in the first place. hobgoblintency is the of small minds, as the saying goes. it certainly is enough inconsistency on this issue to make people believe that this is more partisan motivated that it is purely policy and conscience motivated.

i reserve the balance of my time. grace the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i pointed out to the gentleman recently that news of us were in these jobs when president bush was in office, so we don't know what we would have done at that time. i would hope that if you went against the law, that we would take similar action. i think we would have done that. i yelled at this time three minutes to my friend and colleague the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. you, mr. speaker. i rise today is a member the house armed services committee and chairman of the readiness subcommittee to voice my support for house resolution 644. i would like to thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this to the floor and i respect deeply the ranking member, but adamantly disagree with him on the points that he makes about this piece of

legislation. simply stated, prisoner swap authorized by the president to exchange five taliban captives for sergeant bergdahl was illegal. that part of the law was not followed. it's pretty plain and simple. by failing to notify congress in accordance with the 30 day reporting requirement, our president acted outside of the law. clearly it was not authorized and the law was ignored. you can make arguments about what other prerogatives he had, but you can't say article to was put in place and that trumps other areas of the law. you have to say that this law was disregarded. our constitution clearly outlines the separation of powers. this principle is the cornerstone of our democracy. our framers carefully incorporated divisions of government and the responsibilities there in order to protect citizens by preventing any one branch of overreach and of abuse of power. that's why were years to have these type of debates to say the

president clearly acted outside of the law. congress makes the laws and the president on the other hand has a constitutional charge of ensuring the laws are faithfully executed. of them, but all of them. in this case the president knowingly and willfully disregarded the constitutional duties and americans deserve better. americans expect their president will uphold his end of the constitutional bargain and americans expect the law of the land to apply to everybody. and that they are applied properly in accordance with the direction from congress. congress has an obligation to the people to ensure its laws are enforced. that's why we are elected. we are at a tipping point in the world history in a war against terrorism. the unlawful release of five

taliban prisoners, some of whom will certainly return to the battlefield, deeply concerns me. an investigation i led in 2012 indicated at the time that 27% return to the battlefield. oft's why i remain skeptical the administration's assessment that the released prisoners will not pose a threat to our national security. we have no idea how much more terror these men now might unleash and what impact they will have on the lives of others. law, theng the president has decided he's going to shoulder this responsibility. i argued he had an obligation under the law to consult congress in doing this. the's why it was put into national defense authorization act. we live in a nation where people expect their elected leaders to carry out their duties as the constitution directs them. every day each of us is entrusted by the public to uphold the constitution and we must live up to that obligation. i fully support house resolution 644 and urge my colleagues to support this institution and our

constitution. >> i yield four minutes to the general mode from california, mr. sherman. >> we are here to consider a technical violation of section 1035 of the national defense authorization act. a fair reading of that section would indicate that it is drafted and focused on her to it is prisoner release. the many occasions prior to the adoption of that section when the prior administration or this administration chose to release a prisoner, and when applied to the situation for which it was drafted, is a practical and

fully constitutional provision. its practical because involves a 30 day delay in release of a prisoner, where there is no particular hurry to release the prisoner. we released a prisoner 30 days after the notice. we make the decision to release the prisoner, the prisoner is released. and it gives congress 30 days to perhaps pass a law prohibiting such release. i believe it is constitutional because it doesn't interfere with the commander-in-chief possibility to safeguard and protect the soldiers under his command. attempt tos an criticize the president for not following this statute, when it is applied to a situation for which it was not drafted, and when it is applied in such a way where it becomes incredibly impractical, perhaps impossible,

and constitutionally questionable. we have had prisoner exchanges in every war we have fought, and they have been implemented by the executive branch. even in world war ii we had prisoner exchanges before the end of the war. matter, ifractical you have a 30 day delay, effectuating a prisoner exchange, it is not just the u.s. government that has 30 days to think about whether to go through with the decision. you also give the enemy 30 days to think about it, and the hard-liners within the enemy's counsel can eliminate the deal. impractical, especially if it was a good deal. now this may not have been a good deal, but there may come a time when we have negotiated a very good, favorable to america prisoner exchange, and this

it ision would say prevented, not by decisions of the congress of the president, but by decisions made by their enemy in their counsel. second, a prisoner exchange returns to the united states a soldier under the command and protection of the commander-in-chief. he has a constitutional duty to protect and hopefully return home safely our soldiers. when you create a circumstance that makes it practically impossible to have a prisoner exchange, because in order to have one, you have to give the hard-liners within the enemy counsel and ability to upset it, then i believe you have unconstitutionally interfered with the role of the commander-in-chief. we tell our commander-in-chief to bring as many as possible of our men and women home safely.

incannot at the same time effect prohibit any prisoner innerge within which the me hard-liners may disagree. i'm not here to praise the bergdahl decision. i think i disagree with it. i know i disagree with it. this'm here to say that was a code section not designed to apply to the situation, cannot practically be applied to the situation, and is questionable as applied to the situation. given that, -- i will request one more minute. given that, how can it be said that it's a good use of response time to pass some formal resolution attacking the president for not applying to this situation a code section so invert. we are doing today

is dodging the real responsibility of congress. we are engaged now in bombing isis. the constitution says that congress should play a role in making that decision. many of our colleagues would prefer to dodge the issue. it's safer to attack the president for what he did in the past than to participate in the decisions of the future. we should be dealing with an authorization to utilize military force against isis. termould be debating the that that applies. we should be debating whether it applies to air power alone or whether in some circumstances we should have boots on the ground. a no, we're not dealing with that. vote ona bipartisan which members of both parties might disagree. instead, we are playing around with this resolution. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is

expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> just a little reality check here. i offered the points that went into that national defense authorization act, and one of the reasons was because we specifically did not want any transfer ease of detainees to be taken from guantanamo without alerting the congress, because they had tried it before and had pushback from the congress, and we felt like we should have a part in that -- protect our people. , detainees0 people in guantánamo, that have been vetted, that are approved for possible transfer to some suitable location. none of those five were on that list. all were considered too dangerous to be on that list. there were several months of negotiations. there was plenty of time to give us the 30 day notice. in thelk to 80-90 people

state department, defense department, the white house, homeland security, but not one member of congress in compliance with the law. they didn't talk to senator reid, senator feinstein, they didn't talk to the speaker, nobody. and that was not accidental, that was a firm decision to avoid the law, to avoid going to the congress, which was required. i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, member of the budget committee and cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. article one section one of the u.s. constitution says the togress shall have the power make rules concerning the capture on land and water.

december 20 6, 2013, the president of the united states signed into law the congress plus action on article one, making eight, regarding rules. the president has options on september -- to simmer 2620 13. knowing it was in there, assuming that someone over there -- december 20 6, 2013. at that point the congress could have done whatever they wanted to do. they could override it, they could rewrite it, they could revote it, send it back again. but the president didn't have the right to change it. i have heard a couple of times today voting article two of the constitution. i've read it probably a dozen times just sitting here. it's relatively short. i did find some interesting things. s hise he injures -- entere

office, he shall take the following affirmation. i will faithfully execute the office of the united states and will do the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. later it says that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the idea that the president can take the very law that he signed into existence by putting his name on it, the very law and the anyestion, whether or not president before him did it, is tantamount to someone being pulled over for speeding and say i can speed because the guy in front of me didn't. then there is no law at all. the loss that this congress send over and the president signs are not recommendations. they are not suggestions. speaker, the president of

the united states broke the law. no matter what another congress does or did, what another president ever did, it's irrelevant to this debate. not -- areare reminded not to engage in personality against the president. the gentleman from washington is recognized. a i did note that it is not matter of speaking. it would be like if someone was stopped for speeding and said there is no posted speed limit on the how are you saying that i was speeding? that is the argument a number of , they havehave made the legal right to do this. i would also note that in a couple hundred years of history, no court has ever said otherwise , as ever reversed one of these decisions by the president. so this notion that the president knew he was breaking the law and just did it, and comparing it to two wrongs don't make a right our people

speeding, it is not just this president but every president that i'm aware of, including george w. bush, that this is not a violation of the law. this is not speeding. because of his article to authority. it's not a matter of simply saying he broke the law but if someone else did it, it's ok. it's arguing that none of those people actually broke the law. that is the argument and the debate. the president was very much aware when he signed the bill that it was part of a much larger bill. when he signed that bill, he noted i disagree with this portion. it has the potential to violate my article to authority. so he noticed it was in their and gave notice that he did not feel it would legally bind him in certain circumstances. again, the debatable point, in a couple hundred years of history, all the president have won that debate. now here we stand today saying

that this one president somehow uniquely should be condemned for doing what all before him have done and what all courts have said is perfectly ok. so again, i find this to be more stantive.than sub >> the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. is meetingresident with congressional leaders to discuss our strategy moving forward in iraq and syria to protect americans, our homeland, and our national interests. it's hard, to me, for me to understand why we are debating this partisan resolution that would condemn the president and our government for having saved the life of an american soldier, sergeant bowe bergdahl. , we have seennth

with horror the site of two ofricans killed at the hands some of these deranged insurgents. situation that many of our american soldiers have faced in afghanistan, where mr. bergdahl was captured. so here we have two weeks to go in this congressional session. we just got back from an august recess where there were no birds. we barred been told by the republican leadership in the house that they don't intend to be in session more than two weeks now i'm a this week and next week. we are going to be gone. in that time we have to finish a budget, we have to deal with all sorts of other pressing matters. we have to work with the president to come up with a strategy to make sure it's clear where america stands on these issues.

here we are debating a resolution that has no impact. it doesn't change the circumstances. bowe bergdahl is now alive and back home. it doesn't change the fact that james foley is still dead and so is stephen sotloff. they are both still gone. what we do know is that the military kept its commitment to our men and women in uniform. when they say we never leave one of our own in a military uniform behind. you can have this semantic discussion about whether a statute supersedes the constitution or whether the statute requires the president to act a certain way. all i know is what general dempsey had said before. general dempsey being the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. martin dempsey said this.

with regard to the rescue of bowe bergdahl. bestwas likely the last opportunity to free him. anyone in this chamber has a right to argue whatever they want, but no one was in the shoes of bowe bergdahl. no one was in the shoes of general dempsey. not one of us is in the shoes of president barack obama. he'sat window is closing, got to make a decision because there is an american life on the line. if we don't believe that, just ask the family of mr. foley and mr. sotloff. bowe bergdahl is alive today. thank the lord. thank you president obama, and thank you to our men and women in uniform who risk their own life to make sure that many women like that come back home. we have two weeks to go before out campaigning

for election. you would think we would work on the things that people and america are concerned about most. they want us to not shut down this government again. they want us to make sure that we continue the success of the last 55 months in creating 10 million jobs. don't forget it wasn't too long ago when george bush handed the keys over to barack obama at the white house. we bled 800,000 jobs in just one month. we have more work to do to get people to work. there are whole bunch of families including mine who are sending their kids to college. we have more student loan debt piled up by americans -- one more minute. will the gentleman yield one more minute? >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we have more student loan debt in america, i was saying, held by our young men and women trying to get their college degrees and of course their parents as well who are paying

for it, then we hold in all the credit card debt in america today. this bill doing anything to help young americans and their parents? does this help an american who today works full-time and still lives in poverty because he's working at a minimum wage job? does it help a woman who is out there working just as hard as a man and doing the same exact thing but earning less money than he is? we have work to do. bowe bergdahl is alive. let's praise that. let's make sure every american can come back home. than passing partisan resolutions that have nothing to do with the business at hand. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. respect my friend, we came to congress together and i appreciate his remarks on a lot of things, but we should get back to the subject at hand.

nothing to do with sergeant bergdahl. this has to do with an accident -- an action that the president took. sergeant bergdahl, we are all happy that he is home and we are glad he is here. his case will be taken care of separately. something call to do for the president, the president has not asked us to do anything. we will see what he has to say and then we will see about how we move forward. i'm not an attorney. my good friend from washington is a great attorney. i recall when we had secretary commentd he made the that he thought what they did was within the law, and my good friend responded, here is the way it works. bill,esident signed the said he disagreed with it, but that does not change it, it