they are able to take the extremists on. are wellshmerga motivated, reasonably lead and severely lacking in weapons and equipment. the iraqi security forces are demoralized. it very badly led. badly structured. but our well-equipped with american weaponry. it is why there is a discussion about equipping the iraqi security forces. the think the like-minded group of countries share this view. they begin immediately to reach

out to the kurdish and sunni communities. the support for the restructuring and reconfiguration, that is to reflect the balance within the securityf the iraqi forces and i suspect a significant element of retraining and technical advice and support would be required. issues that secretary hagel and secretary kerry will be discussing in the gulf this to provide, in the short-term, some of that hands-on training.

>> you are right that the political solution in the end, the way you worded it is it sounds like politics are a time -- [indiscernible] one can understand that to a certain extent. we actually get the iraqi army to address these extremists. am i right? the announcement that the iraqi government has been formed to puthat we can expect together the package of support for the iraqi security forces. there is an implicit bargain westthat countries in the put packages of support for this government together, they will be doing it on the basis of the

program that the government has publicly set out. and if that proves not to be delivered, it will be a major setback. that program of outreach is for any emphasis to work. simply retraining, restructuring iraqi security forces while leaving the grievances of the sunni population unaddressed is fora formula for success the pushing back of isil. >> a number of commentators have spoken about decentralized, federal iraq. do you have that with plan b ? >> i think you were asking me if it was plan a.

it clearly envisions a significant degree of decentralization within the and a sharingraq of revenues in a way that addresses grievances. that has to be advice to the has broad-based buying across the communities in iraq. it will be much more difficult for regional countries to support the iraqi government. it is much more difficult to overcome the insurgency it is facing from isil. >> i beg your pardon.

a few minutes ago, you referred to shipments from the baghdad. region via >> so far we have made nonlethal madeents and we have shipments by albanians. >> the government is now prepared to supply weaponry as opposed to other countries. can you tell us when that is going to start? secretary has played a departmental minute concerning the military equipment for the government of her rack.

iraq. that will consist of heavy ofhine guns and ammunition just over 2 million pounds. >> let's go to the kurdistan region. you said last week that we have chosen the role rather than totner and rejected efforts the rules. does that have any impact on the diplomatic approach? believe --personally i think it is very clear that russia has had the option of

being in a partnership relationship with the west. they drill russia into the community of nations to have a partnership with russia. we have strategic differences of outlook. and a sincere belief that we are able to work constructively together as partners. russia is showing that it rejects that notion, that notion of partnership. they choose it quite deliberately. we have a long-established group in europe on changing the boundaries of nation states. that is not the way we do things. russia has shown itself completely oblivious to that.

they are willing to use force to pursue what it sees as its waydiate short-term in a that is rejected by every other state in europe. of the russiangy -- that was followed .y the annexation in georgia that was followed by the annexation of crimea and the ukraine. that is the territorial objective of the future now? to carry out territorial annexation. >> i don't think we know that and i don't think there is any evidence.

there is plenty of speculation about this. . think it is probably the case they will have expected some rising in support of the separatist movement that actually occurred. when they begin to unfold, i don't think we know enough to say whether the current strategy is annexation or not. agreement points to that outcome. how do you judge what is the territorial objective of the russian government in the

ukraine? had the response respond to the that the being made american government and the other governments have done nothing like enough to bring home to mr. putin that the of the annexation violating the boundaries of sovereign states is both relevantble and also to the most extreme dangers. and to bring home to mr. putin that if he thinks he can carry of de factor policy of parts of the territories of one or more of the baltic states, he can precipitate the horrors of a world war iii.

i don't have to respond to criticism of the united states or any other country but i will respond to criticism of the u.k. government. think we have responded in a measured and sensible way. we stood by the people of the ukraine. we have been at the forefront of the implementation of measures within the european union to provide reassurance to the eastern member states of nato and to impose economic sanctions on russia. i think these measures are more effective for having been imposed on the whole of the european union. the reassurance measures having

been delivered and supported by the whole of nato if we had taken within europe a series of bilateral actions. we have to be pragmatic about how far we can go. we can take everybody with us. the responses that -- far morevered effectiveness that had been delivered by a stronger response and delivered only bilaterally. >> can i ask your assessment as to whether we have the right balance?

i think we agree it's important to stand up to the bully in the we canund and i think also argue that we sometimes traded with russia. and i hope that we can secure their allegiance or certainly help with the case of airan. what is your take on that going forward? what are the lessons we can learn? >> hindsight is a wonderful thing. perhaps being naïve about the relationship with putin's russia. i think we need to distinguish different things here. self-interests of

that means russia will continue to work cooperatively with the west. we have an alignment with interest in terms of countries .n the other parts of the world we will continue to pursue a course of action which is in our mutual best interest. of course, it is possible to say that perhaps we should have onen up to what is going earlier in the process. perhaps we should've paid more attention to the rhetoric. being the greatest disaster of the 20th century history, we should have the thesis a little bit more closely where he said that his view that energy

politics can be a leader of state power. all of these are the benefit of hindsight. wanting to draw a russia by stages into the international community. i think one stage we all felt was being pretty successful that russia was becoming normalized, if you like. wanting to play by the rules and becoming increasingly engaged in the international economy and increasingly a country we can do business with. you and i were growing up, but everybody knows plenty of russian people that live in london across europe.

it is no longer the great mystery it was. and we have noticed you with the russian people. have a disagreement with mr. putin's view of the world. ideas ofrly with the what is acceptable in going about achieving his objectives. people in your department should be reading them. the next question is, how is it that it is underestimating the risk here? british diplomacy towards russia and elsewhere. we know we have reopened the we have note, but committed enough resources to eastern europe and russia.

?o we need to invest now >> i think we are reinvesting. we have focused their. that overis no doubt a decade or more, the u.k. lost fromion and disengaged large parts of the world. my predecessor has spent a lot of time and energy rebuilding that engagement with the world and that includes making an investment or example of language. it is having russian language skills. probably fewer than we would like but more than we would have had.

>> i am sure you're not saying this, but it's not just about language. it's about a fundamental understanding. what many on the committee are concerned about our that those in the recent decades have been management consultants and have shown additional skills. it helps us increase our understanding of the problems at large. would you accept that? would you be more specific about what extra resource you're putting into this? it is nice to say you are putting extra resources but can we have some detail? >> of course. we would like to have more russia and east europe focused resorts. how we have managed diplomatic footprints over the last decade

or so and looking past some other major allies. i will ask simon to comment on this. >> if you look at our ambassador in moscow, for example, or kazakhstan or the ukraine, a theyr of other places, have huge amounts of expertise. they also speak excellent russian. i agree it is not just a language. the fact that you mention eastern europe along with russia tells part of the story. in the 1980's, if you were based www.c-span.or [indiscernible]

>> i accept that expertise is there but the fact is, i never understood and did not read the intention behind the stated objections. i think the governments have been a lot more transactional with russia for a number of years than the idea that we believe in some sort of community of values. in different areas wherein cases are interests collided. it was a pretty clear indication of the way in which these things the measures that the then government took in response to that. i resist the notion that we have been naïve. >> it is a comparative game.

the relationship with russia and the benefit of hindsight, we probably do better than some. >> the mutual relations, that relevance, should it be repealed? or listed? >> the russians have clearly breached the founding act. >> it can be delivered without breaching the restrictions in the founding act.

and troop formations in the member countries. >> from a military point of view, looking at what we want to do, it is to rotate a relatively createumber to prepositions for equipment and appointment. it is that if there is no thetical need to breach restrictions and the founding act, there is value in maintaining the moral high observend continuing to the rules-based system that the founding act put in place and

continue to remind the russians. >> [indiscernible] the reassurance measures including the rapid reaction force to spearhead the forces that will operate in eastern europe. certainly not the united states -- on a static basis in eastern europe. it would not fit with the model we have with the way we train and use forces to be highly .obile, highly flexible it is a cold war type model that doesn't fit the way we do things anymore. >> and fellow member states as --whether article five [indiscernible]

and if ukraine had been a nato , it seems like cyber attack, economic destabilization, psychological warfare, use of troops, and soldiers getting lost in eastern ukraine. what russia has done can really be pinned down to article five. it had been lithuania, it would be a very different situation? ukraine is not a nato member and so article five does not ever come into the equation. the nation members benefit from the collective security guarantee that article five offers. you are right and i have sat in this very chair discussing the

defense committee on a number of thations the challenges technologies like cyber present to the definition of the various legal definitions. and in many countries, there is an active debate going on about how to address cyber in particular. and in the context of where the in they lines are drawn international legal system, which governments permit responses. >> [indiscernible]

now, these techniques might be don't we need a quick change of article five in order to stop what's in the ukraine? >> we don't need an appraisal of article five at all. military technology, the technology of war changes, we need to keep our thinking up-to-date. this is true in any field, any legal field. the thinking has to keep with the reality. it is underway, thinking through how these different legal doctrines.

>> it is considerably more clear-cut. retired soldiers, these are gray areas. >> the hybrid warfare is a challenge. again, this is territory that i covered in my former role. one of the challenges for the west and nato is that we are a grouping of democratic and open societies. deniable warfare, proxy wars, veterans fighting campaigns. we cannot do that kind of thing. we have to find a different way to respond to the tools that russia is using.

russia is using its relative advantages. one of the advantages is that it can do nontransparent stuff. other]g over each we have to use the relative strength we have and we demonstrate to them in respect to the ukraine, our big comparative stroke for the resilience of the collective economy and the west which is far stronger, far bigger, far more resilient than the economy that suffers from significant structural weaknesses. >> i don't think we have enough evidence to speculate on whether annexation of eastern ukraine is an objective of the kremlin or not. i can confidently say that we ine asymmetric capability

economic and particularly russiaal sanctions where doesn't want to respond in a because of the way size of our economies. >> what is going on in estonia? oure are in touch with estonian colleagues. there is little more to tell than what has already been published on the news media. official remains in custody in russia. the estonians are continuing to negotiate and discuss with the russians to seek to get him released and returned to their custody. over in a wayme that had been done in the ukraine. might that have been article five?

article five would allow a member state to call upon the other member states under article five if there were a military threat to its territory. there will of course be a large mber of -- poring over the circumstances of any particular threat to identify whether or not it meets the criteria for article 5. >> at the nato summit last week there were discussions about providing weaponry to the ukrainian government. the prime minister's statement yesterday mentioned that some nato partners were providing

weaponry to the ukraine. i saw a list of five or six countries. the u.k. is not among them. why not? >> the u.k. doesn't believe there can be a military solution to the conflict in the ukraine. ukrainian forces made significant gains over a period of weeks after the hm-17 incident. hat we saw over the last few eeks met with a response of a further illegal incursion by russian units. we don't want to encourage the ukrainians to believe that there can be a military solution to this conflict. >> the united states, france, i think other countries.

>> this is a bilateral issue. this is not nato decisions but a bilateral decision. the u.k. takes the view that it would not be able to supply military equipment given our own very stringent export controls on military equipment in the current circumstances. >> other member states are taking part in this. >> i am aware of other e.u. member states who are certainly talking about the possibility of supplying equipment to the ukrainian armed forces. i think we should distinguish between the supplier of equipment immediately during the conflict and discussions about supply contracts that would take place at ry would take

some point in the future. >> why has it taken so long and proved so difficult to get agreement within the european union on effective sanctions and action against russia over ukraine? >> well, i'm not an experienced hand at e.u. negotiation. i'm kind of new to this. those that are tell me this has been a lightning speed response. the e.u. particularly galvanized moved relatively swiftly to impose sanctions that were frankly far stronger and more effective than many were predicting. i think the signals as we read them are far stronger and effective than the kremlin would have expected. >> some said they would

russia didn't raise objections to them at the time when -- was in control in the ukraine. f you remember the sequence of events, we got right to the point where he was contemplating signing the agreement with the e.u. when vents began to spiral. so i think it would be wrong to see this as the west having

failed -- europe having failed to read signals. i don't think russia was sending these signals for the first six years of that seven-year negotiation. 2013,they true in make enormous efforts. changed their position over one weekend. and then did the same arrangement with ukraine. wasn't that clearly something that happened with regard to putin's attitude and what was that? >> yes, but i don't know what it was. i'm afraid i don't control or have access to what goes on in mr. putin's mind. >> would you like to speculate as to why the russians took this position? >> what i would say is the e.u. entered into good faith with negotiations with the ukraine

over a long period of time. this wasn't a rushed deal. this was a long negotiation. russia did not raise objections while its man was in control in kiev. i think we have to be very careful about any suggestion that we would allow russia a veto over the relationships which sovereign independent countries want to negotiate with a bloc like the e.u. >> it also came as a surprise to president yanokovic. he didn't expect this degree of resistance. as you say he was coming expecting to probably sign the agreement. >> would you like to tell us why you think the russians took this iew? >> the only -- the only logic is that the russians expected to be

able to control the situation by one means or another. they sensed perhaps they were losing the lever of control they thought they had, may became more concerned about the agreement being signed. but we can only speculate. >> it may also have been of course that president putin thought we were going to get a signature out of ukraine. the european union going to be prepared to sign the association agreement with ukraine because of the conditionality around the -- > thank you. >> nato's response and the name of it. there has been lots of talk about spending and so forth.

it needs to be able to have some comprehensive response to the sort of tactics you have seen by russia when it comes to the use of militaries. it is a gray area. absolute clarity. if some of the tactics we used in estonia by the russians, what we're seeing in the ukraine and the estonians trying to -- would we stand by that? >> article 5 is very clear. if an armed attack took place. >> by militias? >> on the -- well, that isn't what's happened in the ukraine. we have seen russian units pouring over the border. article 5 itself is clear.

but clearly there is a question and i think i have already addressed this and i have explored it with the defense committee before. there is a question about where you draw that line in international law. that permits a military response. we're not just talking about article 5 here. we're talking about a broader uestion about what kind of attack constitutes armed aggression that entitles the victim to make a military response. that is a debate which is happening here. it is happening in the united states. it is happening in various forums around the world. i reject the idea that nato isn't thinking about this. i have raised at the last three nato defense minter meetings that i have been at. it is increasingly on the radar, driven by cyber because of the awareness.

that a major cyberattack can have a destabilizing effect on a nation. as yet, we don't have a clear and internationally accepted answer to the question. i suspect the nations of the world will have to define what constitutes -- what justifies a military response at some point in the future. >> meeting adjourned until :03. >> we still have a lot of questions to ask. we have 25 minutes left. i will actually have a look at hat as we get going. if you could be brief with your

questions and if you could focus on your answer. e move now to libya. >> it looks as though we have ivil war yet again in libya. most western embassies have been closed. also had a call from very recently last month from the house of representatives to protect libya's civilian population from militias. civilian casuals are going through the roof. do you think libya is at a reaking point? is libya at a breaking point, would you agree stand so, the

washington-london countenance, a request for a further intervention to protect libya's civilian population. the evidence is the different groups becoming more entrenched. i'm going to, if i may invite mr. simon just to update the committee on a conversation that he just had with jonathan powell who is just back from there. that might be helpful. >> jonathan powell, our ambassador to libya visited the country just a few days ago really looking to see what the scope was with trying to arrive at some political agreement between the various parties, and of course i don't for a moment underestimate the difficulty of this. there were some elements which

uggested the situation was grave, clearly, though the possibilities there, the fighting is probably not as bad as it was some while ago. it has died down in most parts of the country for now. it could resurrect itself. one of the side effects of the ighting is there has been more coalescing around two camps in libya, that far rather than trying to negotiate with a whole patchwork of different tribes and groups, there are probably more like two main parties within to negotiate. the parliament being one and en the alternate parliament, being resurrected in tripoli.

so it is clearly a very difficult situation, but there are some prospects by which a political process could be rrived at. >> do the air strikes by the welcome that or do you see dangers from it? >> i think we're always cautious about interventions of this nature. it seems to have been a limited intervention, but it was clearly -- in support of one side in the conflict where our approach is to try to bring the different parties together and impress on them the need for inclusive absolution that will allow the various factions in libya to live and to co-exist peacefully and to share in what could be quite a significant prosperity.

>> those of us who oppose the ntervention -- >> do you think we have made the same mistakes as we did this iraq in 2003 when we failed to plan for what happens after military intervention? >> the intervention in libya was made in response to an immediate, pending humanitarian disaster. i think the intervention was right. it saved many lives. we were always clear that it was going to be a limited intervention. it was not going to be boots on the ground and there were no boots on the ground. it was strictly limited in its scope. we are often urged when we do things to make sure that the objectives are very clearly defined. and that there isn't any

mission. i think the libya campaign is an example of doing just that. defining the limits of what we were prepared to do. doing it and completing it. but of course that has meant that the final resolution of the post kaddafi arrangements on the ground is still a work in rogress. it is still a matter of dispute on the ground. >> you wouldn't argue that -- in libya -- >> we certainly haven't abandoned it. we are very much engaged with libya. we are training libyan troops. libyan government troops in the u.k. at the moment. we have a special envoy who was in libya last week seeking to broker some kind of an agreement between the principle protagonists. we absolutely haven't abandoned libya.

we recognize that libya and libya's stability is quite important to us. not least in terms of libya's role in -- as a route for flows of migrants into southern europe. which would ultimately have an impact ounce in the u.k. >> can i move to gaza and the israel-palestine -- ow would you characterize the u.k.'s role in bringing -- introducing the cease-fire. what steps did we take to facilitate it? >> obviously we welcomed the cease-fire. it wasn't the first one, of course. we have been actively engaged in rging the parties to these talks to agree that a cease-fire

is a necessary first step. a necessary first step. we haven't been direct participants in the cease-fire negotiations but we have been strongly encouraging of the government of egypt in the role that it has taken on. i visited egypt very shortly after i was appointed and met with the foreign minister and the president and c.c. to urge them to leave no stone unturned in bringing the parties to a ease-fire. and we continue to engage with both directly with the parties and indirectly with others who can influence them. and to try ensure that out of his cease-fire that has been upheld for just over a week, maybe two weeks, we get a substantive and meaningful negotiation which leads to

measurable delivered improvements for ordinary gazans trying to go about their business. an easing of restriction on them. increased flows of humanitarian aid. a resolution of some of the long outstanding problems around fishing rights and paying civil servant salaries and so on. hat will lead to the reintroduction of the palestinian authority into gaza which we regard as a crucial next step to allow matters to a develop further. >> it has been very controversial. a former colleague said it was more indefensible and the deputy prime minister said that the policy in the u.k.'s response has risked damage to our

reputation in the region. what is your response to those comments? >> i mean, i clearly -- the deputy prime minister said we risked damage. making a the same of the obvious. -- making a statement of the obvious. of course whenever we take a position we risk -- we risk our reputation in some sense. but we are very clear that the resolution to the problem in gaza has to be through a cease-fire. negotiations around improving the situation in gaza, the reintroduction of the palestinian authority into gaza and then a resumption of the broader discussion about the two-state solution as a final resolution of this very long-running conflict. >> and you don't therefore agree that the government could have

said more or been more outspoken on the issues? >> i'm not sure what you mean by more outspoken on the issues. we have been very clear from the outset that israel has a right to defend itself. first of all, israel has a right to exist, which hamas still denies. israel has a right to defend itself, but it has an obligation in so doing, to comply with the rules of conflict and the principles around protection of civilians, inflicting the minimum damage possible. >> have they done that? >> well, this is an area -- of course there is a lot of noise about. there will need to be a proper examination of the conduct of both sides during this period of conflict. the one thing that we do know for certain is that hamas

launched rockets out of gaza into israel aimed at the civilian population. that much is clear. israel is conducting its own internal inquireys. there will be to be a significant independent element in those. there will also be international -- the u.n. human rights council has established its own inquiry into the events that took place and we will encourage the parties to engage openly with an inquiry. we will also be looking very carefully to assure that that inquiry is itself conducted impartially. >> secretary, i just want to reface my question by saying i

ave been to the target of probably the largest number of hamas rocket attacks and i condemn unreservedly use against israel by hamas which are clearly indiscriminate. visited gaza after the 2008 israeli attack on gaza and there i saw an entire industrial state flattened and i saw an entire hospital burnt out with shells. my question to you is does the british government consider that it is legitimate against a terrorist target to use military force against purely economic and employment targets and against key social service, institutions and buildings like hospitals? >> the law about conflict is

clear and the laws around humanitarian protection are clear. it would not be a legitimate target, those kind of -- that kind of infrastructure unless it was being used for the purposes of military activity and clearly one of the accusations that is made is that hamas during this conflict, deliberately and systematically positioned offensive military equipment in areas of sensitive infrastructure like hospitals and schools and in areas of dense population seeking to use members of civilian population effectively as human shields. now that in itself would be illegal activity. these are allegations. there are huge numbers of allegations on both sides. they need to be investigated and what happens needs to be -- what happened needs to be properly established.

>> let's change from buildings to people. oes the british government consider it is legitimate that if a government like the israeli government believes it has identified a particular hamas terrorist or perhaps one or more hamas terrorists, it is then egitimate to destroy using air-to-surface missiles, tank shells, artillery shells, entire uildings and neighborhoods resulting in very substantial civilian deaths of completely innocent men, women and children. can i add, speaking as a former security minister, that if the british government had dealt with a terrorist in northern ireland using military force in

the same way as has been used by the israelis, then i am absolutely confident that the outrage in the house of commons would have been such that the entire government would have been forced to resign. >> well, i think you're aware of the rules about proportionality in response and so the question that you pose cannot be simply answered for a military response in pursuit of a military target, to be lawful, it has to be proportionate and it is not possible to make a generic statement about types of attack or types of responses without knowing the full circumstances of each individual incident. it is not possible to make that evaluation. people can speculate and people have speculated. what is now needed is a proper

analysis of each incident that occurred. now this will not be easy. but i think it has to appen. there will be mistakes made in prosecution of any military campaign. there will be instances that occur which are not justified and then the question will arise whether they have occurred by inadvertence, by an error, by a failure or whether they have occurred as a result of deliberate targeting. so there are many questions that will have to be answered in analyzing exactly what did happen over that period of time. but i don't think it is helpful to speculate and so seek generic categorization of types of incidents without knowing the details to individual incidents this question.

-- this question. -- in question. >> ok. i totally agree with you on one r two incidents. deaths between 2,000 and 3,000. we're not talking about one or two incidents. we're talking about vast numbers of blaps being fired on. health facilities being attacked by tank shells. there is going to be some forensic inquiry at some stage in the future that is going to bring israel to justice. >> if you don't mind me saying so, you have rather prejudged the case, haven't you? >> there is literally hundreds of cases, many of which were aptured on film.

many of which were accounts from u.n. officials. the government itself said this death toll in gaza was unacceptable. >> i said it. y words. >> the prime minister said it in chamber. he used every word other than isproportionate. a death toll compared to 2,000 o 3,000 compared to 60 on the israeli side is by no means a roportionate response. >> i'm afraid that is a misunderstanding of the proportionality test. first of all, let me say that the level of civilian deaths was horrific. said so on many occasions. outrages. and we want to do everything possible to censure that such a

conflict cannot happen again. look at the number of deaths on each side in the conflict. it requires us to look at the response that was delivered to each individual military -- >> i understand. >> the point you're making is if you look at the outcome as a whole then statistically the fact that so many people died, even if a fraction of those ttacks were disproportionate ou know, with the results that we have heard, the point i'm

trying to make that -- in the way that we would have expected? >> because the government doesn't think that in this case sanctions would be appropriate or effective. there has been a conflict. there have been significant numbers of deaths and we deplore the fact that those deaths occur. we have been very clear about that throughout. then there are very clear legal constraints on the parties involved in this kind of onflict. and there are accusations on both sides of unlawful contact and they need to be investigated. we can't do that here in this committee. we don't have the information. you're taking the gross numbers and you're drawing an extrapolation from them. but of course many of the rockets that were launched against israel were intercepted by the system and therefore didn't cause casualties.

that doesn't mean they were not unlawful. the launch of them remained an unlawful act. >> i condemn those efforts but if this was a boxing match, it would have been stopped after the first round. >> mr. chairman, we and many others would have loved to have stopped it after the first round. i can assure as members of the committee we spared no effort in seeking -- >> my colleagues have made the how the prime minister himself -- >> if you don't mind me saying so, with respect to john, referring to action by the british government. we're not talking here about action by the british government. >> parliament was -- actions that could have been taken in northern ireland. actions that were take twin sraeli government.

>> can we discuss iran? >> asked the one question which a number of issues that we can tackle. one is you're about to respond back to our report, if you could just maybe give us a flavor of what areas you may agree with us on. two, do you think a settlement by november with iran is becoming more or less likely and just that the final item is here is an announcement that our embassy was reopening in teheran. the announcement was made on june 17, nearly three months have passed. why is it taking so long? >> ok. on the first question, the committee's report, the government's response to the report will be published on the 12th, which i think is friday of

this week. is that right? friday of this week? in general, we're in agreement with the report's findings. ot surprisingly there are some differences of emphasis on certain points. one area that i could perhaps mention now is the question of trade with iran. the government's position is that it is important that iran sees agreement on a comprehensive deal as the means to restoring its trade relations. so we are not encouraging companies to trade with iran. of course within the existing restrictions, it is up to individuals to decide whether they wish to trade with iran. it is quite a challenge because of the scale and breadth of the restrictions that are in place. and on the question of the uclear negotiations, these are

at a sensitive stage and i don't want to do anything that makes them more difficult. i think both sides understand the red lines that each other ave drawn. and i would hope that over the next few weeks, there is going to be a determined effort by both sides to see if more common ground can be found, in particular during the united nations general assembly in new york. there will be opportunities for various bilateral and multilateral informal meetings to occur and positions to be explored. we are very clear that we want to see a deal done, but we do not want to see a bad deal done. this has to be a deal in order to reassure the world, the international community that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon and that its interest in

obtaining nuclear enrichment capability is purely directed at a civil nuclear program. we're some way away from being onvinced of that position yet. finally on the question of the embassy, it is our intention to reopen the embassy. we have to make sure this is done in a way which will provide roper protections to our staff allowing them to go about their business and perform their functions effectively and there are some technical issues still remaining outstanding to be dealt with the iranians. they are engaged in those problems with us. we do not expect them -- we do not expect anything in there theres a showstopper, but are processes that need to be

gone through. we are also acutely aware of the fact that one of the principle purposes from the iranian point of view getting the embassy reopened is to have a visa service available in teheran. we need to ensure that we can put in place an effective visa service when the embassy is reopened or we run the risk of disappointing people who have been looking forward to the reopening of our embassy to make btaining a visa more simple. we want to make sure that the two things go properly hand in hand. >> secretary, thank you very much. it is 5:32. we'll stick to our side of the bargain. we have not asked you questions n nigeria, on drones and the future direction of the -- thank you very much indeed. ll done.

>> we'll have more british politics tomorrow morning with prime minister's questions. each week prime minister david cameron answers questions from the house of commons. live coverage from london begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> i just want to comment on the author on his book called "please stop helping us." he was good to listen to. he backed up all of the conclusions with facts and i so appreciate that. i would like to hear more about how he feels we can change the feeling so that people can lift themselves up out of poverty and keep on ascending within the system.

>> changes of your -- a couple of weeks ago and then last i think it was thursday night when they had the election returns, they had it stretched all the way across the bottom, the results. it was so small and these old tv sets that people have, you can't read it, even in zoom or anything else format. appreciate that you go back to where you can stretch it out, different font or do something where people with read the thing. >> i would just like to comment and say how much i appreciate the efforts to get important information like the ebola hearing 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. just thank you. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at -- or email us -- or you can send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> in senate today, members passed a resolution condemning the militant group isis for the killing of two american journalists. bill nelson introduced the resolution yesterday. >> mr. president, i have filed and would like to have it inserted in in the record the senate joint resolution that

have i filed today. mr. president, this is a resolution that will express the authorization for the use of united states armed forces ic state in slam iraq and the lavant. mr. president, it is a resolution that has been cessitated by legal scholars since the president has used his existing authorization for the use of military force in iraq. most recently against isis, isil, isis it's the same thing. to the mediterranean. that's i-s-i-l.

isis, i-s-i-s, is the islamic state in iraq and syria. and, of course, we know that this organization that is calling itself an islamic caliphate, it knows no jurisdictional boundaries; it has taken large swaths of territory in syria as well as iraq; and when the president successfully employed the use of air power, both manned and unmanned, against isis targets as they were marching toward irbil, the capital of kurdistan, and then likewise, as they were

marching toward the mosul damn, the president used his -- the mosul darnlings the president used his norse iraq and also his authority as commander in chief to protect americans. there are americans in irbil, there are americans in bag dated, there are -- in baghdad, there are americans in other places in iraq, and protection of the dam in mosul was to protect those americans downriver, because if the dam were blown, that would have flooded all downriver, and it would have flooded baghdad. legal scholars disagree with me that the president has the authority under the constitution as commander in chief to go after isis in syria.

i describe isis has a snake. if the head of the snake is in syria, which it is, a lot of their organization, a lot of their leadership is there, then we ought to go after the snake where the head is. and decapitate the snake. in doing that, we're going to have to go into syria. now, i believe that the president has the authority to do this under the constitution anyway. but there are some who disagree. so rather than quibble about legalities, i have filed this legislation. there's no pride of authorship. the senate is obviously going to debate this. i believe that if you're seeing

the polls from today where 90% of the people of this country are concerned about isis, and some huge number want us to go on and attack isis in other places than where we are attacking now, then i think it is obvious that the united states is going to have to continue this attack on isis. now, i want to compliment the president. often as i have talked about this issue, people have come -- or members of the press and say, well, the president has dillydallied and so forth. i don't think he has at all. i think the president, indeed, has employed a very successful strategy of going after isis in iraq, in fact, stopped their

march on irbil, in fact, stopped their march on the mosul dam, and is going after them in other locations in coordination with the peshmurga of the kurds as well as the iraqi army. and, indeed, the president started on august the 25th the surveillance flights over syria 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 this resolution, it talks about that there would not be a recurring military presence in the implying of an american army on the ground. it leaves the flexibility that clearly there would be american boots on the ground, just as there already has been when we sent our special operations forces in there to try to rescue the two american journalists that subsequently met such a brutal and uncivil end in their beheading. so american boots have been there. and we might need special

operations kinds of missions in the future. we might need forward air observers actually on the ground to direct in airstrikes. so there's flexibility in this resolution. i want to say that, if there is anybody with any doubt about the intent of isis, they have made it so clear, not only taking the lives of these journalists, the second one of which was from my state of florida, but in their statements of what they intend to do setting up an islamic caliphate, the leader al-baghdadi, even calls himself the caliph, or religious leader, but they have also sthaid they y

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. are and so we're going to -- and so we're going to have to deal with them, not only in iraq, as we are now, but elsewhere. and it's going to be sooner or later. now, 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. and the fact is that the united states is the one that has to lead the coalition. so to get this right out front and center of what we need to do, i have filed -- and it's inserted as part of the record -- the resolution that i am

offering to give the legal authorization from the congress for the president to strike isis in syria and to do as the president has said; to bring it to a successful conclusion to stop this horrendous, uncivil, extraordinary kind of inhumane behavior that is being illustrated by these folks. >> virginia senator tim kaine came to the senate floor today to talk about possible action against isis and congressional authorization for any military operation against the militant group. iated an air campaign against isil in iraq.

isil is a dangerous, terrorist organization committing atrocities against thousands of people, including american hostages and a strong american response to include military action is certainly warranted. in the first month of the air campaign, two explanations for the mission were given by the president. we began with a mission for humanitarian purpose and also the need to protect american embassy personnel. since that time, the white house has stated that the airstrikes may go on for some open-ended period of time despite a pledge not to place american boots on the ground, more american military personnel have been deployed to iraq as advisors and are on the ground now. in order to clarify what's at stake main of my colleagues and i have called for the president to bring before congress and the nation a clear plan for defeating isil. i'm gratified that the president will address the nation on this

topic tomorrow night. i am supportive generally of the limited and prudent steps taken thus far while congress was in recess to slow isil's momentum. i expect i'll hear a comprehensive strategy tomorrow. i support and i am pleased that iraqi political developments are moving to form a unity government and iraqi leaders must govern 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 a region unwilling to police itself. and 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 isil will compel the support of nation and

of congress. mr. president, we are a nation of laws but also of values. i rise particularly today 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 that the president has the authority to quote go on offense and wage an open-ended war on isil without congressional approval. and second, 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 are ordered 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, what's due process, what's cruel and unusual punishment. some are clear and specific. you have to be 35 years old to

be the president of the united states. the power to declare war is a clear and specific power. it is an enumerated power of congress in article 1. the clear wording of the constitution is initially illuminated by the drafter, the virginian, james madison. in a letter to thomas jefferson after the constitution was ratified, madison explained the war powers clause in article 1. quote -- "our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it, it has accordingly with studied care vested question of war in the legislature." so a president must speak congressional approval for significant military action. as commander in chief a president can always take steps to defend america from imminent threats, the framers understood this. but even in those stances, they intended that the president return to congress to seek

ratification of those actions. if we take the constitution seriously, as we pledge to do when we take our oaths, we must follow the demand command that the president must come to congress to initiate major military action. during a congressional recess, president obama began a new military action against isil. he has indicated that the military action may continue for an extended period of time. he has stated that the action is evolving from a narrow effort to protect americans from threat to a campaign to go on offense in order to degrade the ability of isil to harm. this is precisely the kind of situation that calls for congressional action and approval. now, some have asserted, mr. president, that the administration need not seek congressional approval for an extended campaign of airstrikes. humbly and respectfully, i deeply disagree with that assertion. the president's article 2 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 in the days after the 9/11 attacks limits the president's power to actions against the perpetrators of those attacks. isil was not a 9/11 perpetrator, it didn't form until 2003. now, president bush sought a broader aumf at that time to allow actions against terrorist groups posing a threat against the united states. had congress granted such a power the war fence isil would have been with covered by that aumf but congress explicitly rejected the power to wage reemmittive war without additional congressional approval. any temperature would fly directly in the face of the clear congressional action rejecting the preemptive war doctrine. congress passed a second aumf to topple the iraqi regime of

saddam hussein. that task was completed long ago. american troops left iraq in 2011 and the administration has testified before the senate that this aumf is obsolete and should be repealed. it provides no support for military action against isil. this is no treaty of collective defense ratified by congress that would justify the president commencing action against isil. the iraqi government has asked for our help which solves international law sovereignty questions but that request does not create its own domestic legal justification. and finally the 1973 war powers resolution creates a set of timing rules for presidential action and congressional response in matters of war. the resolution 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 its 60-day limitation on his article 2 powers, it does not change the basic constitutional

framework vesting the declaration of war in the legislative branch. i believe that a reluctance to engage congress on this mission against isil is less due to any legal analysis supporting broad executive power than to a general attitude held by all presidents that coming to congress on a question like this is too cumbersome and unpredictable. and 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 ands best avoided if at all possible. i urge the president and my colleagues to resist the understandable testimony takes to cut corners on this process. there is no more important business than weighing whether to take military action and send service members into harm's 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 9/11 whose anniversary we commemorate this week, president bush brought to congress a request for military action. the ruins of the pentagon and the world trade center were spill still smoking and the search for the last was ongoing. certainly the american public would have supported the president's 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 evolve toward a new strategy of

taking prolonged military action without congressional approval and i worry about the precedent it would create for future presidents to assert they have the unilateral wright rite to engage in -- right to engage in long-term milt action without the participation of the people's legislative branch. as president obama said last year when announces he would seek military authorization to combat quest in syria syria, this is this is about who we are as a country. 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 on any plan to defeat isil. let me conclude by offering an additional reason, even a more important reason about why the president and congress should work together to craft a suitable mission for this important effort.

even only an air campaign, we ask our troops to risk they are lives and that are health, physical and mental, when we engage in this kind of campaign. of course we pray for their complete safety and corks but let's be realistic to acknowledge that some may die or be injured or be captured or see these things happen to their comrades in arms. even those who come home physically safe may see or do things in war that will affect them for the rest of their lives. the long lines of people waiting for v.a. appointments today or hominhoping to have their v.a. disability claims ajud adjudicad are proof of this. 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. how much of a sacrifice is it for a member of congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? while congressional members face the political costs of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. and if we dhoos avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives? so i await the president's address on the real and significant threat posed by isil with a firm willingness to offer support to a well-crafted military mission. i believe the american public and this congress will support such a mission. it is my deepest hope that we have the opportunity to debate and vote on the mission in the halls of congress as our framers

intended and as extra nights in a candidates will participate in their first debate. face larry will pressler and gordon howe. we will have live coverage at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. weekend, american history tv is live from mchenry.'s fort tour for mchenry and hear how war came to baltimore. about the british garage on the fourth. francis gott -- fran

key was there to witness the fight. sunday afternoon of the state front with comments from tom harkin and bill and hillary clinton. author ken silverstein on the secret world of oil. sunday night at 6:45 p.m., the democratic senator from new york in herlife and politics call for women to rise and make a difference in the world. find our schedule at c-span.org. tweet.us or send us a join the c-span conversation. follow us on twitter.

the u.s. house passed a resolution today condemning the obama administration's decision to release i've tell a man prisoners in exchange for bergdahl. the debate on the resolution. it is an hour and 10 minutes. resolution 644, resolution condemning and disapproving of the obama administration's failure to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to notify congress before releasing individuals detained at united states naval station, guantanamo bay, cuba, and expressing national security concerns over the release of five taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 715 the amendment to the text and preamble printed in the resolution are adopted and the resolution, as amended, is

considered as read. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks include extraneous material on h.res. 644. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i rise in support of house resolution 644, a resolution offered by mr. rigell of virginia, condemning the obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify congress before transferring individual detainees from guantanamo bay. i'd like to thank mr. rigell on this deeply troubling issue. he worked across the aisle to author a bipartisan resolution, sponsored by 94 members of the

house, including myself, focused on the obama administration's clear violation of staff tute passed by the legislative branch and enacted into law by the president. i'd like to thank ranking member smith. though he did not support this resolution in its entirety, i appreciate his cannedor and his commitment to -- candor and his commitment to fostering a thoughtful debate within our committee. the administration violated the law and house resolution 644 articulates this 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, period. yet, on may 31 at the request of the taliban 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 at accountability office recently determined that the administration violated the law by failing to notify congress, but also by expending funds to carry out the transfers without an appropriation for that purpose. the statutory provision of the ndaa was written and approved by a bipartisan majority in congress because of genuine

concerns the dangerous terrorists were leaving gitmo and returning to fight against the u.s. or its allies. by requiring the secretary of defense to contain -- give detailed information to congress, we need 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 risks that such a transfer could pose or the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. if congress does not speak strongly now to condemn such blatant disregard for the law, any future administration any 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. again, i thank mr. rigell, mr. barrow, mr. rahall and mr. ribble for introducing this bipartisan resolution, and i urge my colleagues to adopt it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes. mr. smith: there are two issues important to this piece of legislation. the first, the chairman mentioned, and that is the legality of this. however, he's wrong in the idea in saying that this is, you know, clear on its face and there's no debate. there's actually considerable debate as to whether or not the president's actions were legal. the president and the 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 the 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 2 commander in chief authority in the interest of national security in had bringing one of our soldiers home, and it is their position that article 2 of the constitution, which is a law, supersedes the piece of legislation that was referenced about 30 days' notice that was passed and therefore their actions were legal. this is in no way unprecedented. i'm sure if we went back and examined 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 2 required them to do so. they felt article 2, the constitution, which is a law, superseded the legislation in question. in fact, we don't have to go back very far. president george w. bush repeatedly took actions that were in violation of the clear

law. post-9/11 he basically authorized warrantless wiretapping, president bush asserted his article 2 authority. so therefore it was legal to do that. go back to abraham lincoln who suspended habeas corpus in the same way. this is a long-running debate between the legislative and the executive branch, and never before has the legislative branch stepped out, a piece of to slation like that, censur the president. perfectly consistent with what george w. bush and a whole lot of other folks did. i think it's wrong to say he violated the law when this is a long-running debate between the executive and legislative branch. i believe that the president should have given us 30 days' notice. the reason they didn't is they were concerned the information would be leaked. this was a very sensitive

negotiation and they were told if the information was leaked it would kill the deal and they were deeply concerned about sergeant bergdahl's health and if any further delay happened 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, that i think congress has proven repeatedly that we can in fact keep a secret. we've been told about a number of sensitives things and not revealed that. think it's -- senator saxby chamblee said if -- i would have done everything i could to stop it. now, after having been explained that's exactly why the president was reluctant to tell congress, the senator walked himself back and said he wouldn't, but his initial reaction sort of shows that the president and the administration were not completely out of bounds in

thinking their ability to bring sergeant bergdahl home might have been jeopardized by allowing congress to know that. be that as it may, i think they should have. i think we've proven ourselves capable of keeping secret and given us 30 days' notice. on a legality action, this is consistent with what large number of presidents have done in the past. so call this president out specifically i think is wrong which brings us to the second issue and that is the partisan nature of this body. now it's not unique to this body. regrettably, if you go back and 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 the congress are in the same party we don't have anywhere near the condemnation, anywhere near the investigations for actions on and on and that regrettably reflects the deepening partisan rift in washington, d.c. and that ultimately is what i think this legislation reflects. it is simply an opportunity for a 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 law under his, you know, articulated article 2 powers, then we would have had something out of this congress that said, hey, don't do that. we didn't. all we had was silence. now, unfortunately what that leads the public to believe is this is a partisan exercise. and we need fewer partisan exercises, not more. i think it's perfectly appropriate for many members, as i did and others to say, the president should have given us notice. he should have given us 30 days. for this to be the first or i guess the second issue, since we had the water bill before this, when we take up after recess, when you look at the national security challenges out there it makes the public shake their head and say, here we go again, another partisan exercise. so unfortunately i think this piece of action is unnecessary and it further poisons the well

between the congress and the president and, again, 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i must respond to a couple points made by my friend from washington. we agree on more than we disagree on. this item we disagree on. it seems to be 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's the point. i think at some point you have to draw the line and that's what we're doing right now. and then secondly, he said that the president said that he really believed he wasn't breaking the law. you know, the prisons are full of people that say they don't think they broke the law, but some judge thinks they did. in this instance, until you

take the matter to the court, it is the law, and even though he's the president of the united states, he did break the law. this time, mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the armed services committee and the lead co-sponsor and the one from day one provided the leadership on this issue, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. rigell: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman mckeon for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. i thank my original co-sponsors, congressman ribble, barrow and rahall for standing with me in this. i respect my colleague, the ranking member, ranking member smith. my respect for him is not diminished by the fact we have strong but different views on this matter. i don't share the ease with which he has accepted the president's -- i believe -- 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 in my service to virginia's second congressional district, an increasing number of men and women from a diverse audience in my district are deeply troubled by the president's continued pattern of going outside of the law and executive overreach and this is an example that hits home in my r district which is more active men and wrim in uniform than any other district. they are increasingly asking me this question, what is congress doing about this? and this resolution today is a direct manifestation of my duty and i believe our collective duty to hold the president accountable for break the law. . the ease with which some have said he hasn't broken the law, it's an independent nonpartisan agency and this sum tier found that -- summer it found that

releasing the taliban senior commanders, in fact the administration did break the law. that's really not in dispute. and in we don't hold the administration accountable for this, who will? that's what we do. and making sure that the balance of powers is adhered to. i think it's important that we look at who was released. among those released is the taliban's deputy defense minister and the president himself acknowledged that there is absolutely the possibility of these senior taliban commanders returning to the battlefield and they can be released by the government of qatar in less than nine months. and the president has more confidence in the government of qatar than i do. or than i think the american people do. despite the administration's unlawful duty to engage congress, despite congress' clear objective -- objection in 2011 on these very same detainees, a bipartisan message was sent clearly to the administration, don't release these prisoners.

it's not in the national interest and security interests of the united states and yet the administration did so. despite the damage that was done to our policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and finally despite the increased risk that this brings to americans, i believe on the battlefield in afghanistan, the administration plowed ahead and it was far more than unwise, it was unlawful. and it merits condemnation. i'll 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 and maybe another member who was bringing something to the floor, i couldn't find it. i thought, well, i guess it falls towls. and 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 this is best for our nation and indeed best for our president and our country and certainly for our men and women in uniform. i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to vote in affirmative. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes just to respond quickly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> first of all, the g.a.o. study specifically said they didn't address the constitutional issue. they didn't address article two. they simply said, on the plain reading of the statute, 30 days' notice was require and 30 days notice wasn't given. mr. smith: the statute itself is really not in question. nor that the president didn't give the notice required. the question is one that we've had repeat lid as to when the president has the authority under his article two authority to go in a different direction of statute. as was mentioned, that happened many times, most recently with george w. bush on warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention and a number of other issues. that's number one. the g.a.o. did not comment on that specific issue.

the second thing i would say is we're not really arguing that the two wrongs make a right. we're arguing about whether or not it was wrong in the first place. i still haven't heard anyone stand up on the other side who supports this issue and say, gosh, we missed an opportunity, president george w. bush was absolutely wrong to have taken those actions that he did and contrary to statute and did something that was illegal and we're very mad about that and as long as we're talking about it, we should mention the fact that that was -- i haven't heard anyone say that. because i think the implication is on that side they didn't think it was wrong. that's the issue. is it wrong for the president to do something that he believes is in the national security interests of the country under his article two authority? i think most people would say, sometimes yes, sometimes no. it's a debatable issue. so it's not matter of saying two wrongs make a right. it's a matter of arguing whether or not it was wrong in the first place. and consistency is the hob goblin of small minds, as the saying goes. but that certainly is enough

inconsistency on this issue to make people believe that this is more partisan motivated than it is purely policy and conscience motivated. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i pointed out to the gentleman recently that neither of us were in these jobs when president bush was in office. mr. mckeon: so we don't know what we would have done at that time. i would hope that if he went against the law, that we would take similar action. i think that we would have done that. i yield at this time three minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as maybe of the house armed services committee and as chairman of the readiness subcommittee to voice my support for house resolution

644 and i'd 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. very simply stated, the prisoner swap authorized by the president to exchange five taliban captives for sergeant bergdahl was illegal. that part of the law was not followed. pretty plain and simple. by failing to notify the congress in accordance with the 30-day reporting requirement, our president acted outside of the law. clearly it wasn't authorized and the law was ignored. you can make arguments about what other prerogatives he had, but you can't say, well, article two will put in place and that trumps other areas of the law. you have to say in this law was disregarded. our constitution clearly outlines those separations of powers. in this principle -- and this principle is the corner stone of our democracy. our framers carefully corporate

rated the division of government and the responsibilitied there in order to protect citizens by preventing any one branch of government from overreach and abuse of power. that's why we're here. to have these type of debates and say the president clearly acted outside of the law. and i'll make this even clearer. congress makes the laws, the president on the other hand has the constitutional charge of ensuring the laws are faithfully executed. not just part of them. but all of them. in this cases the president knowingly and willfully disregarded his constitutional duties and americans deserve better. americans expect that their president will uphold his end of the constitutional bargain. and americans expect that the laws and land apply to everyone and that they are applied properly in accordance with the direction from congress. americans also expect that their congressional leaders are simply not going to slug their shoulders and look the other way. congress has an obligation to the people to ensure that its laws are enforced. that's why we were elected.

and our nation remains today at a tipping point in this world's 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% returned to the battlefield. that's why i remain skeptical of 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 impacts they will have on the lives of others. by ignoring the law, the president has decided that he's going to shoulder this responsibility. i argue he had an obligation under the law to consult congress in doing this. that's why it was put into the 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. and every day each of us is

entrusted by the public to uphold the constitution and we must live up to that obligation. mr. speaker, i fully support house resolution 644 and urge my colleagues to support this institution and our constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. and the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. or four minutes. mr. sherman: we're 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 gratuitous prisoner releases. the many occasions prior to the adoption of that section