[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.''
____________________