[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7325-H7335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CONGRESS BEFORE 
               RELEASING INDIVIDUALS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 715, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 644) 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 715, the 
amendments to the text and preamble printed in the resolution are 
adopted and the resolution, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

       Whereas section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 
     note) requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the 
     appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30 days 
     before the transfer or release of any individual detained at 
     United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
     (hereinafter referred to as ``GTMO'');
       Whereas on May 31, 2014, the Department of Defense 
     transferred five Taliban detainees held at GTMO to the State 
     of Qatar;
       Whereas according to declassified United States government 
     documents, the five detainees were all senior Taliban 
     leaders: Abdul Haq Wasiq was the Taliban Deputy Minister of 
     Intelligence, Mullah Norullah Noori was the Taliban military 
     commander at Mazar-e-Sharif, Mullah Mohammad Fazl was the 
     Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense, Khairullah Said Wai 
     Khairkwa was the Taliban Minister of Interior, and Mohammad 
     Nabi Omari was the Taliban communications chief and border 
     chief;
       Whereas these five senior Taliban leaders have had 
     associations with al-Qaeda or have engaged in hostilities 
     against the United States or its coalition partners;
       Whereas these five senior Taliban detainees held leadership 
     positions within the Taliban in Afghanistan when it provided 
     safehaven for al-Qaeda to conduct planning, training, and 
     operations for the September 11, 2001, attacks;
       Whereas in 2010, after an extensive evaluation meant to 
     identify detainees who could be transferred out of the 
     detention facility at GTMO, the Obama administration 
     determined that these five should remain in United States 
     detention because they were ``too dangerous to transfer'' 
     because each ``poses a high level of threat that cannot be 
     mitigated sufficiently except through continued detention'';
       Whereas the President has stated that there is 
     ``absolutely'' the ``possibility of some'' of these former 
     Taliban detainees ``trying to return to activities that are 
     detrimental to'' the United States;
       Whereas other former GTMO detainees that were transferred 
     have become leaders of al-Qaeda affiliates actively plotting 
     against the United States and are ``involved in terrorist or 
     insurgent activities'';
       Whereas Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives that, pursuant to an agreement with Qatar, 
     the five former detainees transferred in May would not be 
     allowed to leave Qatar for one year, but after that date 
     there would be no restrictions on the movement of the former 
     detainees;
       Whereas notwithstanding the fact that Qatar is an important 
     regional ally, after another GTMO detainee was transferred to 
     Qatar in 2008, Qatar apparently had difficulty implementing 
     the assurances Qatar gave the United States in connection 
     with that detainee's transfer;
       Whereas senior officials in the Obama administration 
     negotiated, through intermediaries in the government of 
     Qatar, with the Taliban, and with the Haqqani Network, which 
     the Department of State has designated as a foreign terrorist 
     organization, and which held Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl captive;
       Whereas Secretary Hagel testified to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives that negotiations 
     for the transfer of the five Taliban detainees in exchange 
     for Sergeant Bergdahl began in January 2014;
       Whereas the General Counsel of the Department of Defense 
     signed a memorandum of understanding with the Attorney 
     General of the State of Qatar on May 12, 2014, regarding the 
     security conditions for transfer of these five Taliban 
     detainees;
       Whereas in addition to an unknown number of officials of 
     Qatar, senior Obama administration officials acknowledge that 
     approximately 80 or 90 individuals within the Obama 
     administration were knowledgeable of the planned transfer of 
     the five Taliban detainees prior to their transfer;
       Whereas Congress was not notified of the transfer until 
     June 2, 2014, three days after such individuals were 
     transferred, and 33 days after the date on which such 
     notification was required by section 1035 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 
     113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 
     113-76);
       Whereas the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     President and other senior Obama administration officials, 
     did not comply with the 30-day notification requirement;
       Whereas article II, section 3 of the Constitution 
     stipulates that the President ``shall take care that the laws 
     be faithfully executed'';
       Whereas on January 15, 2009, the Office of Legal Counsel in 
     the Department of Justice acknowledged that, under article I 
     of the Constitution, Congress possesses legislative authority 
     concerning the detention and release of enemy combatants;
       Whereas the Obama administration has complied with the law 
     in all other detainee transfers from GTMO since the date of 
     the enactment of prevailing law; and
       Whereas in 2011, after leaders of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives expressed their bipartisan opposition to the 
     prospective transfer of these Taliban detainees from GTMO, 
     senior Obama administration officials assured these Senators 
     and Members of Congress that there would be no exchange of 
     Taliban detainees for Sergeant Bergdahl, and that any 
     transfer of Taliban detainees that might otherwise occur 
     would be part of a reconciliation effort with the Taliban and 
     the Government of Afghanistan and that such a transfer would 
     only take place in consultation with Congress pursuant to 
     law: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) condemns and disapproves of the failure of the Obama 
     administration to comply with the lawful 30-day statutory 
     reporting requirement in executing the transfer of five 
     senior members of the Taliban from detention at United States 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
       (2) expresses grave concern about the national security 
     risks associated with the transfer of five senior Taliban 
     leaders, including the national security threat to the 
     American people and the Armed Forces of the United States;
       (3) expresses grave concern over the repercussions of 
     negotiating with terrorists, even when conducted through 
     intermediaries, and the risk that such negotiations with 
     terrorists may further encourage hostilities and the 
     abduction of Americans;
       (4) stipulates that further violations of the law set forth 
     in section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and 
     section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2014 (Public Law 113-76) are unacceptable;
       (5) expresses that these actions have burdened 
     unnecessarily the trust and confidence in the commitment and 
     ability of the Obama administration to constructively engage 
     and work with Congress; and
       (6) expresses relief that Sergeant Bergdahl has returned 
     safely to the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on H. Res. 644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 644, a resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), condemning the 
Obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify 
Congress before transferring individual detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
  I would like to thank Mr. Rigell for his leadership 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 statute passed 
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

[[Page H7326]]

appreciate his 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 GTMO. 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 GTMO 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, 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 that 
dangerous terrorists were leaving GTMO and returning to fight against 
the U.S. or its allies.
  By requiring the Secretary of Defense to convey detailed information 
to Congress, the provision is intended to allow Members to have a 
complete understanding of the risks of sending GTMO 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 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.
  Again, I thank Mr. Rigell, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Ribble for 
introducing this important bipartisan resolution, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  There are two issues important to this piece of legislation. The 
first that the chairman mentioned is the legality of this. However, he 
is wrong in the idea in saying that this is clear on its face and there 
is no debate. There is 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, and this is actually an 
issue that comes up repeatedly between the legislative and the 
executive branch. It has been coming up for a couple hundred years now.
  The administration's position is that they acted in accordance with 
their article II Commander in Chief authority in the interest of 
national security and in bringing one of our soldiers home, and it is 
their position that article II 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.

  The first thing to really understand about this is that this is in no 
way unprecedented. I am 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 
II required them to do so. They felt article II--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. He authorized 
indefinite detention.
  Both of those issues were clearly contrary to statutory law, but 
President Bush asserted his article II authority and said that, 
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 with legislation like this to censure the President.
  So, number one, the President did not violate the law. He followed 
what he felt was article II of the Constitution, perfectly consistent 
with what George W. Bush and a whole lot of other folks did, so I think 
it is wrong to call him out and say that he violated the law when this 
is simply part of a long-running debate between the legislative and the 
executive branch.
  Now, let me say I feel that the President should have given us 30 
days' notice. I do believe that. Now, the reason that they didn't is 
because they were concerned that the information would be leaked.
  This was a very sensitive negotiation, and they were told that if the 
information was leaked, it would kill the deal, and they were deeply 
concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health and that if any further 
delay happened, that he might not survive his current incarceration 
with the Taliban, so 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 have been told about 
a number of very sensitive things and have not revealed that 
information.
  I think it is worth noting that the President isn't completely 
without reason for that. In fact, Senator Saxby Chambliss, after this 
was revealed, was asked, ``Well, if you had known about this, what 
would you have done?''
  He initially said, ``Well, I would have let people know, absolutely, 
because I didn't think it was a good idea, and I would have done 
everything I could to stop it.''
  Now, after having been explained that that is exactly why the 
President was reluctant to tell Congress, the Senator walked himself 
back from those remarks and said that he wouldn't, but his initial 
reaction sort of shows that the President and the administration were 
not completely out of bounds in thinking that 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 have proven 
ourselves capable of keeping secrets, and they should have given us 30 
days' notice, but on the legality question, this is perfectly 
consistent with what a large number of Presidents have done in the 
past.
  So to 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 is not unique to this body. Regrettably, if you go back 
and you 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 
investigation for actions, on and on and on; and that regrettably 
reflects the deepening partisan rift in Washington, D.C.
  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 articulated article II 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 that 
this is a partisan exercise, and we need fewer partisan exercises, not 
more. I think it is 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

[[Page H7327]]

water bill just before this--that we take up when we come back from 
recess, when you think of all the economic and national security 
challenges and everything that is going on out there, I think once 
again makes the public just shake their head and say, ``Here we go 
again, another partisan exercise.''
  Unfortunately, I think this piece of legislation is unnecessary, and 
I think it further poisons the well between Congress and the President. 
Again, I do not feel that 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.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I must respond to just a couple of points 
made by my good friend from Washington.
  We agree on more than we disagree on. This item we disagree on, but 
it seems to me that his main argument is that because other Presidents 
have done it, it is okay for this President to do it. In other words, 
two wrongs make a right. I don't think that is the point. I think at 
some point, you have to draw the line, and that is what we are doing 
right now.
  Secondly, he said that the President said that he really believed he 
wasn't breaking the law. You know, prisons are full of people that say 
they don't think they broke the law, but some judge thinks they did, 
and in this instance, until you take the matter to the court, it is the 
law. Even though he is the President of the United States, he did break 
the law.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Rigell), my friend and colleague who is a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, is the lead cosponsor, and is the one who has 
from day one provided the leadership on this issue.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership 
and bringing this resolution to the floor. I thank the original 
cosponsors, Congressmen Ribble, Barrow, and Rahall for standing with me 
on this.
  I respect my colleague from Washington, Ranking Member Smith, and my 
respect for him is not diminished by the fact that 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.

                              {time}  1530

  It is not partisan. It is in my service to Virginia's Second 
Congressional District.
  An increasing number of men and women from a very diverse audience in 
my district are deeply troubled by the President's continued pattern of 
going outside of the law and executive overreach. This is an example 
that hits home in our district, which is home to more men and women in 
uniform, Active Duty and retired, than any other of the 435 
congressional districts. They 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.
  Now, again, the ease with which some have said that he hasn't broken 
the law, well, that is not shared by the GAO, the Government 
Accountability Office. It is an independent nonpartisan agency, and 
this summer it found that in releasing the Taliban senior commander, in 
fact, the administration did break the law. That is really not in 
dispute.
  If we don't hold the administration accountable for this, who will? 
That is what we do: making sure that the balance of powers is adhered 
to.
  I think it is important that we look at who was released. Among those 
released is Mullah Mohammad Fazl, the Taliban's deputy defense 
minister. The President himself acknowledged that there is absolutely 
the possibility of these senior Taliban commanders returning to the 
battlefield. They can be released by the Government of Qatar in less 
than 9 months. The President has more confidence in the Government of 
Qatar than I do and I think the American people do.
  So, Mr. Speaker, despite the administration's lawful duty to engage 
Congress, despite Congress's clear objection in 2011 on these very same 
detainees, a bipartisan message was sent clearly to the administration: 
Don't release these prisoners; it is not in the national interests and 
security interests of the United States. And yet the administration did 
so.
  Despite the damage that it has 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 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 
looked for someone else and maybe another Member that was bringing 
something to the floor. I couldn't find it. I thought, well, I guess it 
falls to us. 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 that this is passed today, and I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just 
to respond quickly.
  First of all, the GAO study specifically said they didn't address the 
constitutional issue; they didn't address article II. They simply said 
on the plain reading of the statute, 30 days' notice was required and 
30 days' notice wasn't given, which, by the way, didn't take a GAO 
study to figure out. 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 one that we have had 
repeatedly as to when the President has the authority under his article 
II authority to go in a different direction of the statute. As was 
mentioned, that happened many times, most recently with George W. Bush, 
a warrant with wire tapping and indefinite detention and a number of 
other issues. That's number 1. 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 are arguing about whether or not it was wrong 
in the first place. All right? 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 are very mad about that. As long as 
we are talking about it, we should mention the fact that--so I haven't 
heard anyone say that, because I think the implication is, on that 
side, they didn't think it was wrong.
  And that is the issue: Is it wrong for the President to do something 
that he believes is in the national security interest of the country 
under his article II authority? I think most people would say: 
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is a debatable issue. It is not a 
matter of saying two wrongs make a right. It is a matter of arguing 
whether or not it was wrong in the first place. And consistency is the 
hobgoblin of small minds, as the saying goes, but there certainly is 
enough inconsistency on this issue to make people believe this is more 
partisan motivated than it is purely policy and conscience motivated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the gentleman recently that 
neither 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 he went against the law, we would take similar action. I think that 
we would have done that.
  I yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness.

[[Page H7328]]

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee and as chairman the Readiness Subcommittee to voice 
my support for H. Res. 644.
  I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing 
this to the floor. 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. It is 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 II we'll put in place and that trumps other 
areas of the law. I think you have to say that this law was 
disregarded.
  Our Constitution clearly outlines those separations of powers. This 
principle is the cornerstone of our democracy. Our Framers carefully 
incorporated the division of the government and the responsibilities 
there in order to protect citizens by preventing any one branch of 
government from overreach and abuse of power. That is why we are here 
is to have these type of debates and say the President clearly acted 
outside of the law.
  I will make this even clearer. Congress makes the laws; the 
President, on the other hand, has a constitutional charge of ensuring 
the laws are faithfully executed--not just part of them, but all of 
them. In this case, the President knowingly and wilfully disregarded 
his constitutional duties, and Americans deserve better.
  Americans expect that their President will uphold his end of the 
constitutional bargain. Americans expect that the laws of the 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 shrug their shoulders and 
look the other way. Congress has an obligation to the people to ensure 
that its laws are enforced. That is why we are elected.
  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 percent return to the battlefield. That is 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 those 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 is 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 H. Res. 644 and urge my colleagues to 
support this institution and our Constitution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, 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 gratuitous prisoner releases, the many occasions prior to 
the adoption of that section when the prior administration or this 
administration chose to release a prisoner. When applied to the 
situation for which it was drafted, it is a practical and fully 
constitutional provision.
  It is practical because it involves a 30-day delay in release of a 
prisoner where there is no particular hurry to release the prisoner. We 
release the 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's ability to safeguard and protect the soldiers 
under his command.
  Now there is an attempt to 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.
  Now, as a practical matter, if you have a 30-day delay in 
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 council can eliminate the deal. So it is 
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 provision would say it is prevented not by decisions 
of the Congress or the President, but by decisions made by our enemy in 
their council.
  But, 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's council an ability to upset it, 
then you have, I believe, 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. We cannot at the same time, in effect, 
prohibit any prisoner exchange with which the enemy hard-liners may 
disagree.
  Now, I am not here to praise the Bergdahl decision. I think I 
disagree with it; I know I disagree with it. But I am here to say that 
this was a code section not designed to apply to the situation, cannot 
practically be applied to this situation, and is constitutionally 
questionable as applied to this situation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Given that, how can it be said that it is a good use of 
Congress' time to pass some formal resolution attacking the President 
for not applying to this situation a code section so infirm?
  I think that what 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 is 
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. We should be debating the term that that applies. We 
should be debating whether it applies to airpower alone or whether, 
under some circumstances, we should have boots on the ground.
  But, no, we are not dealing with that. That is too tough a vote. That 
is a vote on which members of both parties might disagree. Instead, we 
are playing around with this resolution.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, just a little reality check here. I offered 
the points that went into the National Defense Authorization Act. One 
of the reasons I did it was because we specifically did not want any 
detainees to be taken from Guantanamo without alerting the Congress, 
because they had tried it before and it had pushback from the Congress 
and we felt like we should have a part in that protection of our 
people.

[[Page H7329]]

                              {time}  1545

  There are 80 people, detainees, in Guantanamo that have been vetted 
and that are approved for possible transfer to a suitable location. 
None of these 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 days' notice. They talked to 80 to 
90 people in four different executive branches: the State Department, 
the Defense Department, the White House, and Homeland Security, but not 
one Member of Congress, in compliance with the law. They didn't talk to 
Senator Reid, they didn't talk to Senator Feinstein, and they didn't 
talk to the Speaker. Nobody. And that was not accidental. That was a 
firm decision to avoid the law and to avoid going to the Congress, 
which was required.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ribble), my friend and colleague, a member of the Budget Committee, and 
cosponsor of the resolution.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution says: ``The 
Congress shall have the power''--I want to repeat--``the Congress shall 
have the power to make rules concerning the capture on land and 
water.''
  December 26, 2013, the President of the United States signed into law 
the Congress' action on article I, section 8, regarding making rules.
  The President had options on December 26, 2013. He could have signed 
it, as he did, accepted language that was in there, knowing it was in 
there--I am assuming someone over there read it. So he had an option to 
sign it. He had an option to send it back, and at that point the 
Congress could have done whatever they wanted to do. They could 
override it, they could rewrite it, they could revote on it and send it 
back again.
  What the President didn't have the right to do was to change it. And, 
in fact, I have heard a couple of times today quoting of article II of 
the Constitution. I have read it probably a dozen times just sitting 
here today. It is relatively short. I am having a hard time finding the 
authority here, but I did find some interesting thing. Article II: 
``Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the 
following oath or affirmation, `I do solemnly swear or affirm that I 
will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United 
States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States.' ''
  Later it says that the President, he shall take care that the laws be 
faithfully--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--as a suggestion--
whether or not any President before him did it--is tantamount to 
someone being pulled over for speeding and saying, I can speed because 
the guy in front of me did it.
  Then there is no law at all. The laws that this Congress sends over 
there and the President signs are not recommendations. They are not 
suggestions.
  Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States broke the law. No 
matter what another Congress does, or another Congress did, or what 
another President ever did is irrelevant to this today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would again note that it is not a matter 
of speeding. It would be as if someone were stopped for speeding and 
said that there is no posted speed limit, how are you saying that I was 
speeding? That is the argument. It is the argument a number of 
Presidents have made, that their article II authority for national 
security purposes gives them the legal right to do this.
  I would also note that in a couple hundred years of history, no court 
has ever said otherwise, has 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 or 
people speeding, it is the President's opinion--and, by the way, not 
just this President, but every President that I am aware of, including, 
again, George W. Bush, that this is not a violation of the law, this is 
not speeding, because of his article II authority. So it is not a 
matter of simply saying, well, he broke the law but if someone else did 
it, it is okay. It is arguing that none of those people actually broke 
the law. That is the argument in the debate.
  As far as the bill itself, yes, the President was very much aware of 
it, that it was in that bill when he signed the bill, and it was part 
of a much larger bill. It was part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  When he signed that bill, he noted: ``I disagree with this portion. I 
think it has the potential to violate my article II authority.'' So he 
absolutely noticed that it was in there and gave us notice that he did 
not feel that it would legally bind him in certain circumstances.
  Again, it is a debatable point. All I know is that in a couple 
hundred years of history, the Presidents, all of them, have won that 
debate. And 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 okay.
  So, again, I find this to be more partisan than substantive.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the President is meeting with congressional 
leaders to discuss our strategy moving forward in Iraq and Syria to 
protect Americans, our homeland, and our national interests.
  It is hard 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.
  In the past month, we have seen with horror the sight of two 
Americans killed at the hands of some of these deranged insurgents, not 
unlike the situation many of our American soldiers have faced in 
Afghanistan where Mr. Bergdahl was captured.
  So here we have 2 weeks to go in this congressional session because 
we are just back from an August recess where there were no votes, and 
we have already been told by the Republican leadership in the House 
that they don't intend to be in session more than 2 weeks now, this 
week and next week, possibly a few days in the following week, and 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, and we have to work with the President 
to come up with a strategy to make sure that it is clear where America 
stands on these issues that impact the lives and security of Americans 
abroad and at home, and here we are debating a resolution that has no 
impact. It doesn't change the circumstance. Bowe Bergdahl is now alive 
and back home. It doesn't change the fact that James Foley is still 
dead and so is Steven Sotloff. They are both still gone. But 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 military uniform 
behind.
  Now, you can have this semantic discussion about whether a statute 
supersedes the Constitution or whether this statute required the 
President to act a certain way. All I know is what General Dempsey has 
said before. General Dempsey being the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, Martin Dempsey, General Dempsey said this with regard to the 
rescue of Bowe Bergdahl:

       This was likely the last best opportunity to free him.

  Now, anyone in this Chamber has the right to argue whatever they 
want. But no one was in the shoes of Bowe Bergdahl, quite honestly, no 
one was in the shoes of General Dempsey, and at the end of the day, not 
one of us is in the shoes of President Barack Obama. And if that window 
is closing, he has got to make a decision because there is an American 
life on the line. And if we don't believe that, just ask the families 
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 risked their 
own lives to make sure that men and women like that could come back 
home.

[[Page H7330]]

  We have 2 weeks to go before we are gone and out campaigning for 
election. You would think that we would work on the things that people 
in 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 of creating 10 million jobs--because 
remember, don't forget, it wasn't too long ago, January 2009, when 
George Bush handed the keys over to Barack Obama at the White House, we 
bled 800,000 jobs in just 1 month. We have got more work to do to get 
people to work. There are a whole bunch of families, including mine, 
who are sending their kids to college.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. BECERRA. We have more student loan debt in America held by our 
young men and women trying to get their college degrees and, of course, 
their parents, as well, who are paying for them, than we hold in all 
the credit card debt in America today.
  Does this bill do anything to help young Americans and their parents 
help their kids get through college? Not a thing. Does this help an 
American today who works full-time and still lives in poverty because 
he is working at a minimum-wage job? Not a thing.
  Does this 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? Not a 
thing.
  We have got work to do.
  Bowe Bergdahl is alive. Let's praise that. Let's make sure every 
American can come back home and say the same thing, and then let's get 
to work doing the real business of this country rather than passing 
partisan resolutions that have nothing to do with the business at hand.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I 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. This has nothing to do with 
Sergeant Bergdahl. This has to do with the action that the President 
took. We are all happy that Sergeant Bergdahl is home, and we are glad 
that he is here, and his case will be taken care of separately.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a call to do something for the President. The 
President hasn't asked us to do anything yet. He is not even speaking 
until tomorrow. Then we will see what he has to say, and then we will 
see how we move forward.
  I am not an attorney. My good friend from Washington is a great 
attorney. And I recall when we had Secretary Hagel, and Secretary Hagel 
made the comment that he thought what they did was within the law. And 
my good friend responded that here is the way it works: The President 
signed the bill and said that he disagreed with it, but that does not 
change it. It is still the law until it is challenged in the courts. 
That is our system.
  Anyway, Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), my good friend from the other 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter and a sponsor of this 
resolution, and I appreciate my friend from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) for 
working with me on this bipartisan effort to hold the administration 
accountable. Under current law, the President is required to notify 
Congress prior to releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. 
Unfortunately, he failed to do that this summer when he transferred 
five high-priority detainees in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.
  Although I am grateful that Sergeant Bergdahl has been reunited with 
his family, I strongly disagree with the President's decision to 
negotiate with terrorists, and I certainly don't agree with the 
President's decision to make this prisoner exchange without first 
consulting with Congress in the manner required by federal law.
  The freeing of terrorists poses a national security threat to 
Americans and our Armed Forces, and it complicates our current efforts 
to combat terrorism worldwide. Negotiating with terrorists will only 
weaken this Nation in the future and encourage other terrorists to 
kidnap Americans in an attempt to extort future prisoner exchanges.

                              {time}  1600

  Checks and balances aren't negotiable. It is unacceptable for this or 
any other administration to treat Congress as an afterthought or 
adversary, particularly with decisions impacting our national security 
and especially since, in this case, Congress could have helped the 
President get this decision right.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services 
Committee and having the honor to serve under Mr. McKeon and Ranking 
Member Smith, I would like to just share a couple of thoughts, having 
sat through the hearing with Secretary Hagel where he was held 
accountable that day, he was asked very probing, difficult questions 
about a very difficult decision, which was happening at Mach speed, 
when an opportunity--a small window of opportunity opened up to recover 
an American soldier held in captivity by the enemy.
  When the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act, 
including the 30-day notice, the administration put up a big red 
warning flag saying that article II of the U.S. Constitution, which 
empowers the President to be the Commander in Chief, conflicted with 
that section, and they reserved their rights to continue to act 
pursuant to the Constitution.
  Now, any first-year law student--frankly, almost any high school 
student who takes American history--knows that a constitutional 
provision trumps a statute, that when there is a conflict of law 
between a constitutional provision and a statute, the Constitution 
prevails.
  The President, as Secretary Hagel laid out in excruciating detail 
when he was asked about the sequence of events which led up to the 
decision that was made, again reviewed through the Justice Department 
their authority.
  Realizing that again there was no plan B, there was no plan C to get 
Sergeant Bergdahl out of captivity, there was no Special Forces sort of 
ready to rev up and go in and free him, the fact of the matter is that 
it was this or there was nothing and that, exercising his rights under 
the Constitution, they moved forward and freed Sergeant Bergdahl, which 
apparently everybody agrees with the outcome, they are just upset with 
the fact that the President's interpretation of the law is different 
than the committee.
  So where are we with this resolution? Is there a remedy? Is anybody 
proposing to do anything other than just sort of issue what I think is 
just a political polemic criticizing the President for his actions?
  This resolution is a nullity in terms of any effect or impact that it 
actually has in terms of the President's actions. He is not being held 
to account by impeachment, which probably there is a lot of talk on the 
Internet when this was all taking place, but that is not happening.
  So it is just really we are filling up space here on the floor of the 
House when we have so many other pressing issues. At the end of the 
day, it is not going to change the events. It is not going to change 
the two sides in terms of their interpretation of what happened here 
one iota.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I understand that people had an honest 
disagreement about the way the statute was interpreted and implemented, 
but what I will just say to you is that that is an honest disagreement 
that happens and has happened in American history over and over again.
  We should move on. We should let the military do whatever 
disciplinary proceedings they are going to do with Sergeant Bergdahl.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. COURTNEY. We should let the military act as they deem appropriate 
in terms of Sergeant Bergdahl's actions in the Middle East, but the 
fact of the

[[Page H7331]]

matter is it is Secretary Hagel who came before this committee as a 
wounded warrior from the war in Vietnam, an impeccable military 
history--in my opinion, one of the most outstanding individuals I have 
had the privilege to meet in Washington, D.C.--testified honestly and 
sincerely. He took his hits before the committee.
  Let's move on. Let's accept his explanation. Disagree with it if we 
honestly feel that he acted improperly, but the fact of the matter is 
he acted pursuant to the Constitution. It is time for this Congress to 
focus on real issues that have a real effect on the American people.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague, and a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 644. The President's 
actions in unilaterally swapping five Taliban members for an American 
prisoner swept away a decades-old policy of not negotiating with 
terrorists. This policy prevents the United States from being extorted 
by evil people who hold no regard for human life.
  The President's actions lead to an open season on Americans all over 
the world. Are we now in the business of negotiating with terrorists? 
Is ISIL up next at the bargaining table with this administration? These 
are senior Taliban detainees, not low-level foot soldiers. Will the 
administration stop at five next time? Why not 50 or 100? This is 
unacceptable.
  The President's actions were also troublesome because he did not 
inform Congress prior to making the swap. Even the independent 
Government Accountability Office explicitly said that this exchange 
broke the law. Some will try to say that this is just partisan 
rhetoric, but what did they say to the findings of the nonpartisan GAO?
  While it is a relief to have an American home, the way this was done 
further erodes the working relationship between the President and 
Congress. The President asked the Congress to act and pass bills, but 
how can we trust him with new legislation when time and time again he 
has abused that trust? How do we know he is not just going to ignore 
the next law that we send him?
  Congress must stand up against the way this prisoner exchange took 
place. We are a nation that believes in the rule of law. We have a 
Congress that makes law and a President who is supposed to enforce 
them. In this case, the law was broken, and Congress cannot remain 
silent.
  I urge every one of my colleagues to support this important 
resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Washington 
has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The issue here of negotiating with terrorists misses the fact that 
this happened on the battlefield. The five Taliban commanders were 
captured on the battlefield, as was Bowe Bergdahl. This was a prisoner 
exchange, as has happened in every war that we have fought.
  Now, it is a slightly different situation because it is the Taliban 
who are now out of power. We are not actually fighting a government at 
this point. We are fighting a group of insurgents, but nonetheless, 
Bowe Bergdahl was captured on the field of battle, as were the five 
Taliban commanders, and this was a prisoner exchange.

  To equate this with negotiating with terrorists I think totally 
misses the point of that aspect of it, that we were exchanging 
prisoners, not dealing with a straight terrorist situation. I don't 
think it sets that precedent at all, and I think we need to be aware 
that that was what the President was facing.
  Was the exchange a good deal? That is highly debatable. I am glad I 
wasn't the Commander in Chief having to make that call, facing the 
deteriorating health of Bowe Bergdahl and wondering if five Taliban 
prisoners were worth saving his life, but these sorts of decisions are 
made all the time.
  I would remind you that Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, no 
shrinking violet when it comes to terrorism, once exchanged over 1,000 
Palestinian prisoners for two Israel soldiers because that was a 
prisoner exchange. That was bringing home the people that Israel wanted 
brought home, and it was not easy.
  So this is not simply a matter of negotiating with terrorists or 
giving away prisoners. It is the difficult choice of what you do to 
bring your own soldier home, a difficult choice that every President or 
Prime Minister whose country is engaged in warfare has to face. I don't 
think we should diminish the difficulty or the importance of that 
decision.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague and a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H. Res. 644, 
for which I am a proud cosponsor.
  This bipartisan bill condemns and disapproves the Obama 
administration's failure to comply with the lawful requirement to 
notify Congress before releasing individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay 
and expresses national security concerns over the effects of releasing 
five Taliban leaders and negotiating with terrorists.
  Our constitutional system of checks and balances maintains a 
separation of powers that ensures Congress is involved in major 
decisions that affect our country's national security.
  I have serious concerns when the President deliberately ignores 
Congress, negotiates with terrorists, and violates the law which 
requires that he consult with Congress before releasing detainees.
  Those five Taliban leaders that were released are already responsible 
for the deaths of many Americans. In 2010, they were determined ``too 
dangerous to transfer'' by President Obama's own task force. One of the 
five had ties to Bin Laden himself. Another is wanted by the United 
Nations for war crimes.
  Unfortunately, there is a good chance these five terrorists will 
return to their radical jihadist fight against America and against our 
Western allies. Nearly 30 percent of detainees reengage in terrorist 
activity after being released.
  In any major decision of war and peace, Congress must have a say 
because the American people must have a voice. As we continue to face 
many tough decisions over how to best protect Americans at home and 
abroad, Congress should be an active participant in decisionmaking. I 
will continue to work hard to ensure our homeland remains safe from 
terrorist attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. DeSantis), my friend and colleague and a member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me you have two issues here: 
one, Congress, which we have an enumerated power to make rules for 
detainees captured on land and water; then you also have, as the GAO 
report pointed out, a funding prohibition that withheld funds 
contingent on the President providing that notification.
  As Madison said in the Federalist Papers, the power of the purse is 
the most effectual weapon that we have in terms of vindicating the 
interests of our constituents. So whatever the President's article II 
power is, clearly, if we remove the funding, then he is not able to do 
that through the executive branch.
  So the question is: Knowing that, why go ahead and do it? Why not 
comply with both the statute and the funding restriction? I think the 
reason is because they knew this would not be popular with the American 
people. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, 
``Well, this statute really shouldn't apply in this situation because 
hard-liners in the enemy camp can nix the deal.''
  I have got news for you, Mr. Speaker, the hard-liners were the 
subject of the deal. I served in Guantanamo for a time. The Bush 
administration released detainees who they thought may not have been a 
danger anymore. Nobody would have even suggested that

[[Page H7332]]

this Taliban Five did not represent a danger to our national security.
  So here we have an instance where Congress clearly exercised its 
authority in order to check the President on an issue with, in terms of 
the terrorist detainees, that his views are, quite frankly, not 
representative of the American people as a whole. We did that 
legitimately, and this President decided to flagrantly violate the 
lawful actions that we took.
  I urge support for this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  The release of the Taliban Five, in violation of a law that President 
Obama himself signed, is among the greatest examples of this 
administration's disregard of the Constitution. It reflects contempt 
for this Congress and for the people who are represented here. Worst of 
all, his actions have emboldened Islamic militants and endangered 
American service personnel and civilians around the world.
  Five years ago, when I first came to Congress, the President 
announced his intentions to close the terrorist detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay. The Justice Department went shopping for a prison back 
in my State of Illinois to relocate those most dangerous and hardened 
enemy combatants from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Back then, Democrats had a majority in this House and a supermajority 
in the United States Senate. Even then, the President could not get 
authority from this Congress, controlled by his party in both chambers, 
to empty Guantanamo and move terrorists even detained back here to 
United States soil.
  It is one thing for the President to defy any old law. It is another 
thing for the President to defy the very laws that he, himself, signed 
into law, but President Obama has gone even further.
  By refusing to notify Congress of his intention to open the gates at 
GTMO and thus avoiding the anticipated political pressure that his 
carelessness would invite, the President has done the unthinkable. He 
has negotiated with terrorists, plain and simple.
  I would say that he has abused the office and the power which comes 
with it, except in this case he has done something that he doesn't even 
have the power to do.

                              {time}  1615

  Tomorrow night the President will address the Nation about his latest 
strategy to deal with Islamic jihadists, but I would suggest that the 
world has seen enough about how this administration deals with 
terrorists and nothing he says tomorrow night can hide the growing 
sense among jihadists around the world that they finally have an 
American President who will negotiate with them.
  It is important for Congress to tell the world where we stand. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What is 
personalities toward the President, just for a point of clarification? 
Personal attacks, perhaps?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are allowed to engage in debate on 
policy. They are not allowed to engage in personally offensive remarks 
regarding the President.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to take note of 
the importance of this debate and, as well, the respect that we as 
Members of Congress owe each other and this institution.
  I have long said that our longevity comes not only because of the 
democratic principles of our Constitution, but because there is the 
groundwork of the Founding Fathers and those who took to the floor to 
debate such raging issues as the question of slavery in the 1800s. Each 
time we are given the microphone, I think that we should adhere to that 
respect, and each time we put our pen to paper to create legislation, 
it should equally be based on the grounds of respect and understanding 
of the constitutional divisions of the three branches of government.
  Today I think we have failed. This is, as I said, a personal attack 
against the President. If we would read the resolution, we would see 
five items that completely dictate the failure of the Obama 
administration.
  Let me say that all of us concede the point that section 1035 that 
was added under the Obama administration in 2012--or, more recently--
does ask the President to give a 30-day notice to Congress. No other 
President has been asked to do that.
  The President has been very clear on his intent to close Guantanamo. 
Many of us have been to Guantanamo. But the issue before us was not an 
effort to close Guantanamo. And so to suggest that there was malicious 
intent of this President is, from my perspective, showing disrespect 
and dishonor to us, the institution, and the three branches of 
government.
  Let me be very clear. There is a debate on the powers that the 
President has under the war powers. Some say there is a statute that 
says he had to notify us. But there was an explanation. This very 
strong committee, the Armed Services Committee, with the chairman, whom 
I respect, and the ranking member, had a very thorough hearing that 
many of us were able to read some of the transcript where the Secretary 
of Defense came and explained.
  I think one of the key elements for me as a member of Homeland 
Security is that the Secretary made it very clear that this was a 
military operation with very high risk, as spoken by Secretary Hagel on 
June 11, 2014, and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't 
want to jeopardize, both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl--there is a 
sentence that congratulates us for not leaving our precious treasure 
behind--and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk 
to secure this return. There are those of us who remember that brief 
glimpse that we had of the rescue. Our men and women swooped down and 
picked up Sergeant Bergdahl. It was a military action.
  This is an unnecessary resolution, Mr. Speaker. It is wrongly 
condemning. The President had authority and he explained what the 
action was.
  Vote against this resolution. It is untimely and wrong. Vote against 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H. 
Res. 644, and the underlying resolution.
  I oppose the resolution because at bottom it is nothing more than 
another partisan attack on the President and will make it difficult for 
this body and the Administration to find the common ground and goodwill 
needed to devise and support policies needed to address the real 
threats and challenges facing our country, particularly the threat 
posed by ISIS.
  H. Res. 644, a resolution disapproving of the Obama administration's 
failure to provide Congress with 30 days advance notice before making 
the transfer of certain Guantanamo detainees that secured the release 
of an American soldier, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
  Sgt. Bergdahl's health was poor and rapidly deteriorating at the time 
his release from captivity was secured by his Commander-in-Chief, 
President Obama, who speaking for the nation, said on June 3, 2014 in 
response to critics of his decision:

       The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and 
     that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind. 
     Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American 
     soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop.

  Mr. Speaker, the resolution condemns the Obama Administration for 
failing to comply with the 30-day advance notice requirement imposed by 
Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76).
  I disagree for several reasons. First, as Defense Secretary Hagel 
testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 11, 2014, 
``this was not simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation 
with very high risk and a very short window of opportunity that we 
didn't want to jeopardize--both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, and 
our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure 
his return.''

[[Page H7333]]

  As a military operation, rather than a routine transfer of detainees, 
the President had the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to 
authorize this sensitive military operation for which time was of the 
essence.
  The resolution put forward by the House majority assumes that the 
provisions of Section 1034 of National Defense Authorization Act trump 
the President's constitutional authority under Article II if the two 
are in conflict. This clearly is an erroneous assumption since Article 
VI of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme 
law of the land and prevails in the event of a conflict with federal or 
state law. See, e.g., INS v. CHADHA, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (federal law 
conferring ''legislative veto'' power to be exercised by only House of 
Congress held unconstitutional).
  But even if it were less clear whether a conflict existed between a 
federal law and the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, as 
Justice Robert Jackson pointed out 62 years ago in the famous ``Steel 
Seizure Case,'' Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 
640 (1952), it does not automatically follow that the president has 
``broken the law'' if he relies upon his claimed constitutional 
authority:

       [B]ecause the President does not enjoy unmentioned powers 
     does not mean that the mentioned ones should be narrowed by a 
     niggardly construction. Some clauses could be made almost 
     unworkable, as well as immutable, by refusal to indulge some 
     latitude of interpretation for changing times. I have 
     heretofore, and do now, give to the enumerated powers the 
     scope and elasticity afforded by what seem to be reasonable, 
     practical implications, instead of the rigidity dictated by a 
     doctrinaire textualism.

  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the 
constitutionality of Section 1035, the statutory provision which the 
resolution asserts the President has violated, has never upheld by any 
court, and certainly not upheld against a challenge that it 
impermissibly infringes upon the President's duty as Commander in Chief 
to protect the lives of Americans abroad and to protect U.S. service 
members.
  The Administration strongly objected to the inclusion of Section 1035 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, on the ground that 
it unwisely and inappropriately interferes with the Executive Branch's 
ability to manage detainees in a time of armed conflict.
  Indeed, the President has informed Congress of his objection to the 
inclusion of these and similar provisions in prior versions of the 
Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Act is law, and it 
is interesting to note that they only began to be inserted after 
President Obama assumed the office.

  Mr. Speaker, not only is the resolution before us ill-conceived and 
unwise, its timing could not be worse.
  There are only a few days left before the Congress adjourns. We need 
to devote all our time on addressing the real problems facing the 
American people, like raising the minimum wage, making college more 
affordable, passing immigration reform, and responding to the threat to 
the security of the nation and the homeland by ISIS.
  Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is serious and real and the 
President has reached out to Congress to work with him to develop a 
unified and international response to meet the threat.
  And tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation on the 
nature of the ISIS threat and the actions the United States will take 
to protect the security of the nation and the homeland.
  In the midst of this international crisis, it does not help or 
strengthen our country for the House to be debating a partisan 
resolution condemning the President and Commander-in-Chief.
  In concluding, let me quote again Defense Secretary Hagel:

       The options available to us to recover Sergeant Bergdahl 
     were few, and far from perfect. But they often are in 
     wartime, and especially in a complicated war like we have 
     been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years. Wars are messy and 
     full of imperfect choices.
       In the decision to rescue Sergeant Bergdahl, we complied 
     with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best 
     interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant 
     Bergdahl.
       The President has constitutional responsibilities and 
     authorities to protect American citizens and members of our 
     armed forces. That's what he did. America does not leave its 
     soldiers behind.
       We made the right decision, and we did it for the right 
     reasons--to bring home one of our people.

  Mr. Speaker, we should not waste this precious remaining on matters 
intended to score political points or to hold the current president to 
standards we never applied to his predecessors.
  I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. We have just one more speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the inference has been that this happened on the spur of 
the moment and they didn't have time to tell Congress. These 
negotiations on this transfer went on for months. They have admitted 
they told 80 to 90 people in four of the departments of the executive 
branch but not one Member of Congress, in compliance with the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  On the last point about the people who were noticed how long this was 
going on for, yes, the negotiations were going on for around 3 years, 
but the timeliness came in when they actually had a deal. The 
President's concern was once they got to the point where they had the 
deal, if the details of it had been leaked, it would have nixed the 
deal. And they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health.
  As I have said, this is an extraordinarily difficult call. I don't 
know if I would have done this deal or not. It is hard. The Commander 
in Chief has that responsibility. As I have mentioned, other leaders 
through the world have done it, including Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu, who gave up over a thousand prisoners in exchange for two 
Israeli soldiers. Those choices are difficult, and I am certain that 
those thousand Palestinians that were released posed some risk to 
Israel, but that is the decision they made. And that is the decision 
the President made.
  This resolution is not primarily about whether or not the deal should 
have been done; it is about whether or not we should condemn the 
President for a clear violation of the law. And I will simply come back 
to the fact that this President has only done what every other 
President before him did in exercising his article II authority--under 
his interpretation and every previous Executive's--that this was legal.
  It has been implied throughout this resolution that the President 
looked at the law and said: I'm just not going to follow it. That is 
not what he did. He did what every President before him has done. He 
said that he believed it was within his legal authority to make this 
decision.
  So to put forward a resolution that said he intentionally broke the 
law, I think, is wrong on its face. This President made a determination 
about his article II authorities and went forward with it. He did not 
knowingly violate the law. Secretary Hagel has explained that 
repeatedly.
  Again, I said it a little while ago that President Bush did the exact 
same thing. He violated any number of different laws and said that 
article II is the reason. We have been told: Well, that was years ago. 
I don't know what we would have done then.
  I have offered up the opportunity for anybody on the other side to as 
roundly criticize and condemn President Bush for those actions now that 
we are here. I haven't heard it. It hasn't been said. All of which 
leads us to the inescapable conclusion that this is more partisan than 
principled. This President is the one who is being condemned by a 
Republican Congress. All the other Presidents have done it and it is 
just: Oh, we are just not going to do anything about that. That leads 
to the belief that this is a partisan action.
  I think Congress should comment on this. We had great hearings on 
this. We should have had a hearing on this. We brought in Secretary 
Hagel. He explained himself. We criticized some of those decisions. 
That is appropriate.
  This resolution is unprecedented and I think once again shows that 
this body has become more partisan than principled.
  I urge everyone to reject the resolution, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am leaving Congress at the end of this year, but I am 
sure at home I will still be able to hear blame on President Bush for 
at least the next 2 years.
  One thing we can't escape is the fact that this went on for months. 
Even

[[Page H7334]]

though they had to make a critical last-minute decision, they still had 
time to notify 80 to 90 people in the executive branch and not one 
Member of the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, in 
accordance with the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he might consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) to give the concluding remarks on 
this debate. He is the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) for 
introducing this measuring and shepherding it through the committee and 
onto the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to vote on this 
measure for two reasons. One is that it is important for Congress to 
speak clearly and directly when a President violates the law, and that 
is exactly what GAO said the administration did. They violated section 
811.
  Now, it is true that throughout the country's history there have been 
differences of opinion about the constitutionality of various 
provisions of law. I think it is fairly rare, however, that a President 
has chosen to violate a provision that is as clear as this one. There 
was no waiver authority. There was no ambiguity. There was no matter of 
interpretation. The law was clear. It says, if you are going to 
transfer somebody from Guantanamo Bay, you have got to give at least 30 
days' notice. And they did have meetings within the administration that 
discussed whether to follow that 30-day requirement, and they decided 
not to do it. So it was a clear-cut decision not to follow the law.
  In addition to that, the point was made by the gentleman from Florida 
that they also violated the Antideficiency Act. There has never been a 
dispute about the ability of Congress to put conditions on funding. And 
yet, by carrying out this action, they spent funds for which they were 
not authorized to spend, which also violated a separate law.
  They didn't have to tell everybody. They could have just told the 
Speaker and majority leader. I think they are pretty safe at keeping 
secrets. Yet the President chose not to. The rule of law is important. 
It is fundamental to our system. And so it is important to speak 
clearly on that.
  But here is the second reason. The Constitution gives Congress a 
variety of powers related to national security; but in carrying out 
those powers, whether it is oversight of the money we spend, oversight 
of the operations, making decisions to authorize the use of military 
force, all of that depends upon Congress having accurate, timely 
information. This decision not to follow the law undercuts the trust 
that is required between the military and the intelligence community 
and the Congress in carrying out our responsibilities.
  Tomorrow night we are all going to listen to the President as he, 
hopefully, gives us his goals and strategy for achieving the goals to 
diminish and destroy ISIL, but all of that is possible only if there is 
an exchange of information so that we can carry out the 
responsibilities that the Constitution puts upon us.
  When we don't have trust that the President and the military or the 
intelligence community following his orders are giving us that 
information, then we can't have trust that we have the ability to carry 
out our duties under the Constitution.
  On a bipartisan basis, over the last several years, we have set up 
oversight structures on cyber, on terrorism, on sensitive military 
operations that allow the military to operate in a complicated world 
but give us the ability to get the information to carry out the 
oversight that we have to have.
  That is the other reason this is important. This undermines that 
trust that is necessary for an executive and legislative branch to 
defend the country in a complex world. For that reason, I think it is 
important for us to speak clearly about it because there are going to 
be more instances in the days ahead.
  We need--we deserve--to have full information.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the United States should 
not negotiate with terrorists. Members of Congress on both sides of the 
aisle agree, which is why we have passed laws requiring the President 
notify us if he wishes to change effective foreign policy. Sadly, when 
the President unilaterally organized a prisoner swap with the Taliban 
for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, he broke the law, 
disregarded the Constitution, and placed all American families at risk.
  A recent GAO report details the extent of which the President ignored 
current law and disregarded Congress in his decision-making. In 
addition to violating the thirty-day rule, funding was used that was 
not available to complete the transfer, which violates the 
Antideficiency Act
  The five members of the Taliban whom the President released and 
effectively pardoned from Guantanamo Bay are ``high risk'' and 
dangerous with extensive ties to al Qaeda. These terrorists have the 
blood of innocent civilians by the 9/11 attacks and American soldiers 
on their hands and are fixated on destroying our freedoms. Immediately 
upon their release, members of the Taliban praised this ``big victory'' 
as the first time the ``enemy officially recognized our status.'' One 
Taliban leader went as far to say that the return of one prisoner was 
``like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of 
jihad. Now the Taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final 
moment before victory in Afghanistan.'' These detainees are sure to 
relocate to Afghanistan and resume launching attacks against the United 
States and our Allies. At a time when our brave men and woman are still 
fighting the Global War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, this decision 
further places our heroes in harms way.
  This administration has a history of ignoring our laws in order to 
achieve its own agenda. According to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, 
these negotiations did not happen overnight, but were in the works for 
months. The reason why the President did not notify Congress thirty 
days before giving the go-ahead to release and pardon five jihadists as 
required by law is because he did not feel it was necessary. It's time 
to put a stop to this irresponsible behavior and hold the President 
accountable. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution 
that condemns and disapproves of the President's unlawful actions, 
which have placed American families at risk here at home and abroad.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
strong concern regarding President Obama's failure to notify Congress 
at least 30 days in advance of exchanging five Taliban prisoners held 
at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowie 
Bergdahl, who was held by the Taliban as a Prisoner of War (POW).
  However, this resolution is a clear example of partisan overreach by 
the House Majority and does not appropriately address these issues. Nor 
does it advance this debate in a constructive way. In the words of the 
Dissenting Views of the House Armed Services Committee members, this 
resolution is ``an overstated and unnecessary product of a rhetorical 
exercise fueled by over partisanship.''
  We, as a nation, have an obligation to the men and women who serve in 
our Armed Forces to do everything in our power as a nation to bring 
them home. Americans do not leave our soldiers behind.
  Section 8111, of the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act 
of 2014, prohibits the President from using any Congressionally 
appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo 
Bay, unless Congress is notified 30 days in advance. This is the law, 
and the President is required to comply with the law.
  The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that 
``DOD violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant 
congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer.'' 
Additionally, GAO concluded that DOD violated the Antideficiency Act 
``because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no 
money was available for that purpose.''
  While I agree with the GAO findings, I cannot vote for a purely 
partisan measure written under the pretense of addressing a violation 
of the law.
  This is a serious matter that requires deliberative debate in 
Congress. The President should have followed the law, as laid out in 
section 8111, and notified Congress 30 days in advance of this release. 
However, the American peo deserve better than this highly politicized 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 715, the previous question is ordered on 
the

[[Page H7335]]

resolution and on the preamble, as amended.
  The question is on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 163, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               YEAS--249

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--163

     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Engel
     King (IA)
     Lee (CA)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Sewell (AL)
     Tierney
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1655

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FARENTHOLD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``Resolution condemning and 
disapproving of the failure of the Obama administration to comply with 
the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress before transferring 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, and expressing concern about the national security risks over the 
transfer of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating 
with terrorists.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 485 on September 
9, 2014, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 485, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________