The Prior Administration or this administration chose to release a prisoner. And when applied to the situation for which it was drafted, its a practical and fully constitutional provision. Its practical because it involves a 30day delay in release of a prisoner where theres no particular hurry to release the prisoner. We releaseed the prisoner 30 days after the notice, we make the decision to release the prisoner, the prisoner is released. Tanned gives congress 30 days to perhaps pass a law prohibiting such release. And i believe its constitutional because it doesnt interfere with the commander in chiefs 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 its applied to a situation for which it was not drafted and when its applied in such a way where it becomes incredibly imprktcal, perhaps impossible impractical, perhaps impossible, and constitutionally questionable. We have had Prisoner Exchanges in every war weve 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 30day 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 enemys counsel can eliminate the deal. So its imprktcal 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 its prevented not by decisions of the congress or the president but by decisions made by our enemy in their counsels. But second, a Prisoner Exchange returns to the United States a soldier under the command and protection of the commander in chief. E 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 hardliners within the enemys counsel 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 which the enemy hardliners may disagree with. Now, im 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 the situation and is constitutionally questionable as applied to this situation. Given that ill request one more minute. Mr. Smith i yield the gentleman an additional minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. Mr. Sherman given that, how can it be said that its a good use of Congress Time to pass some formal resolution attacking the president for not following for not applying to this situation a code section so infirm . I think that what were 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. Its safer to attack the president from 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 air power alone or whether under some circumstances we should have boots on the ground. But no. Were not dealing with that. Thats too tough a vote. Thats a bipartisan thats a vote on which members of both parties might disagree. Instead were playing around with this resolution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from washington reserves. And the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mckeon mr. Speaker, just a little reality check here, i offered the points that went into the National Defense authorization act, and i did it one of the reasons was because we specifically did not want any transferees of 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 protect our people. You know, there are 80 people, detainees at guantanamo, that have been vetted, that are approved for possible transfer to some suitable location. None of those five were on that list. All were considered too dangerous to be on that list. There are several months of negotiations. There was plenty of time to give us the 0 days notice. They talked to 80 to 90 people in four different executive branches the state department, the defense department, the white house, the Homeland Security but not one member of congress in compliance with the law, they didnt talk to senator reid, they didnt talk to senator feinstein, they didnt talk to the speaker, nobody, and that was not accidental. That was a Firm Decision to avoid the law, to avoid going to the congress which was required. Mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the Budget Committee and cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Ribble. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Ribble i thank you, mr. Speaker, and i thank the chairman for yielding. Article 1, section 1 of the constitution says the Congress Shall have the power repeat 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 1, section 8 regarding making rules. The president had options on december 26, 2013. He could have signed it like he did and accepted language that was in there, knowing it was in there. Im assuming someone over there knew it was in there. At that Point 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. But the president didnt have the what the president didnt have the right to do was change it i heard a couple times today quoting article 2 of the constitution. I read it about a dozen times. Its relatively short. Im trying a hard time finding authority. Before he enter article 2, 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 do the best of my ability to 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 sayingry sped because the guy in front of me did it. Then there are no laws. The laws that the Congress Sends over and the president signs are not recommendations, not suggestions. Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States broke the law. No matter what another congress does, what another congress did, what another president ever did is irrelevant to this debate. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore members are reminded not to eb gauge in personalities against the president. The gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Smith its not a matter of speeding. Its someone stopped for speeding and saying there was no posted speed limit, how were you saying i was speeding . That is the argument. Its the argument a number of president s have made is their article 2 authority for National Security purposes gives them the legal right to do this. I would also note within a couple hundred years of history no court has ever said otherwise. Has ever, you know, 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 dont make a right or people speeding, it is the president s opinion and by the way, not just this president but every president that im aware of, including, again, george w. Bush, this is not a violation of the law. This is not speeding. Because of his article 2 authority. So its not a matter of simply saying, if he broke the law and somebody else did it its ok. Its arguing that none of those people actually broke the law. That is the argument and 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 part of the National Defense authorization act. When he signed that bill he noted, i disagree with this portion. It could violate my article 2 authority. He simply noticed it was in there and gave us notice he did not feel it would legally bind him in serp circumstances. Again, debatable point. All i know in a couple hundred years of history, the president s, all of them, have won that debate. And now here we stand food saying this one president somehow uniquely condemned for doing what all before him have done and what all courts have said is perfectly ok. So, again, i find this to be more partisan than substantive. With that i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Becerra. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Becerra i thank the gentleman for yielding. 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. Its hard to me 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 and so here we have two weeks to go in this congressional session because we just got back from an august recess where there were no votes and weve already been told by the Republican Leadership in the house that they dont intend to be in session by more than more than two weeks now. This week, next week and maybe a couple in the next week. Well deal with a budget, all other pressing matters, work with the president to come up with measures its clear where we stand that impact americans abroad and at home and here we are debating a resolution that has no impact. It doesnt change the circumstances. Bowe bergdahl is now alive and back home. It doesnt change the fact that james foley is still dead and so is steven so the love. Theyre both sotlopf. Theyre both still gone. What we do know is 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 best opportunity to free him. Now, anyone in this chamber has a right to argue whatever they want, but no one was in the shoes of bowe bergdahl. No one was in the shoes of general dempsey. At the end of the day, not one of us is in the shoes of president barack obama. And if that window is closing, hes got to make a decision because theres an American Life on the line. If we dont 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. We have two weeks to go before were gone and out campaigning for election. You would think 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, it was not too long ago, january, 2009, when george w. Bush handed the keys over to barack obama at the white house, we bled 800,000 jobs in one month. We have more work to do to get people back to work. There are a whole bunch of families, including mine, who are sending their students to college. We have more Student Loans can i get one more minute . The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Becerra if the gentleman will yield . If the gentleman will yield one more minute . Mr. Smith i yield the gentleman one minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Becerra we have more Student Loan Debt in america, i was saying, held by our young men and women trying to get their College Degrees and of course their parents, as well, who are paying for this 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 who today works full time and still lives in poverty because hes 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 got work to do. Bowe bergdahl is alive. Lets praise that. Lets make sure that every american can come back home and say the same thing and then lets get to work doing the work of this country. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from california. Mr. Mckeon 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. Sergeant bergdahl, were all happy that hes home and were glad that hes here and his case will be taken care of separately. Theres a call to do something for the president. The president hasnt asked to us do anything yet. He isnt speaking until tomorrow and well see what he has to say and see how we move forward. You know, im 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, heres the way it works. The president signed the bill, said he disagreed with it, but that does not change it. Its still the law until its challenged in the courts. Thats our system. Anyway, mr. Speaker, at this time im happy to yield to my good friend from the other side of the aisle from georgia, two minutes, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Barrow. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Barrow thank you, 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 highprofiled detainees in exchange for Sergeant Bowe bergdahl. Although i am grateful that Sergeant Bergdahl was reunited with his family, i refuse with the president negotiating with terrorists and making this Prisoner Exchange without consulting with congress in the manner required by 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 would only weaken this nation in the future and encourage other terrorists to kidnap americans in attempt to extort future Prisoner Exchanges. Checks and balances arent negotiateable. Its 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, and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith thank you. I yield three noins mr. Courtney. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from conne