Date: 2014-09-09
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

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 2012or. more recentlydoes ask the President to give a 30day 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 didnt want to jeopardize. both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahlthere is a sentence that congratulates us for not leaving our precious treasure behindand 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 administrations 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. Bergdahls health was poor and rapidly deteriorating at the time his release from captivity was secured by his CommanderinChief. 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 dont leave our men or women in uniform behind. Regardless of the circumstances. we still get an American soldier back if hes held in captivity. Period. Full stop. Mr. Speaker. the resolution condemns the Obama Administration for failing to comply with the 30day advance notice requirement imposed by Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 11366. 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 2014 (Public Law 11376). 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 didnt want to jeopardizeboth for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl. and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return." As a military operation. rather than a routine transfer of detainees. the President had the constitutional authority as CommanderinChief 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 Presidents 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 Presidents authority as CommanderinChief. 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 Presidents 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 Branchs 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 illconceived 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 CommanderinChief. 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. Thats 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.