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

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. for his time. and for his very eloquent words. Very quickly. Madam Speaker. as I indicated in the Rules Committee. what poor timing for a resolution. in the midst of a crisis with ISIS. to be able to criticize the President for using his constitutional powers. and now. in a debate on ISIS. why he isnt doing something. The American people are confused. This is the wrong time for the wrong resolution. It has no purpose. I am grateful that Sergeant Bergdahl is home. We dont leave our soldiers behind. We looked at the heinous killing of our two precious journalists. Now. we are asking for the great leadership of this administration. which it has been doing. but this resolution is wrong. It is misdirected in law. and it is conflicting with law. and we have already addressed the question. I am not condemning the administration. I believe that this resolution should be pulled off the floor. Madam 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. Madam 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. Madam 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 been 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. servicemembers. 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 in law. and it is interesting to note that they only began to be inserted after President Obama assumed the office. Madam 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. Madam 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 reasonsto bring home one of our people. I hold to the beliefs of the role of Congress in any declaration of war and the value and purpose of the Administration adhering to the rules of consultation with Congress. In this instance the administration explained its reasoning and Congress already through committee hearings expressed its disagreement. This resolution is nothing but political and wholly without purpose and just simply wrong. Madam Speaker. we should not waste this precious time 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.