Disapproval of the Administration's Failure to Notify Congress Before Releasing Individuals from Guantanamo Bay

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source