Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140910

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 connecticut is recognized for three mibbles. Mr. Courtney thank you, mr. Speaker. As a member of the House Armed Services committee, i have the honor to serve under mr. Mckeon and Ranking Member smith. I would like to just share a couple thoughts, having sat through the hearing with secretary hagel, where he was held to account. He was held accountable that day. He was asked very probing, difficult questions about a very difficult decision which was happening at mock 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 a National Defense authorization act, including the 30day notice, the administration put up a big red warning flag saying that the second, article two, rather, 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 firstyear law student, frankly almost any High School Student who takes american hit rit history, knows that a constitutional provision trumps a statute. That when theres a conflict of law between the constitutional provision and a statute, the constitution prevails. And the president , as secretary hagel laid out in ex crucialating excruciating detail, again, reviewed through the Justice Department their authority in 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 this 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 grease with the outcome agrees with the outcome. Theyre just upset 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 thing, 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. Hes not being held to account impeachment which there was a lot of talk on the internet when this was all taking place, but thats not happening. So its just really were filling up space here on the floor of the house when we have so many other pressing issues. And at the end of the day, its not going to change the events, its not going to change the two sides in term ofs 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 thats 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 theyre going to do with Sergeant Bergdahl, can i just have another 15 seconds . Mr. Smith i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Courtney we should let the military act as they deem appropriate in terms of Sergeant Bergdahls actions in the middle east but the fact of the matter is, secretary hagel, who came before this committee as a Wounded Warrior from the war in vietnam, an impeccable military history, one of the most outstanding individuals ive had the privilege to meet in washington, d. C. , testified honestly and sincerely. He took his hits before the committee. Lets move on. Lets 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. Its time for this congress to focus on real issues that have real affect on the American People. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mckeon mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from colorado, mr. Lamborn. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Lamborn i thank the chairman. And i rise today in strong support of h. R. 644. The president s actions in unilaterally swapping five taliban members for an american prisoner swept away a decadesold 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. But 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 were senior taliban detainees, not lowlevel foot soldiers. And 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 do they say to the findings of the nonpartisan g. A. O. . While its 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 hes 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 everyone of my colleagues to support this important resolution. Thank you, mr. Speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith thank you, mr. Speaker. May i inquire as to how much time is remaining . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington has seven minutes remaining. The gentleman from california has 10 minutes remaining. Mr. Smith i yield myself two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Smith 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 bo bergdahl. This was a Prisoner Exchange, as has happened never war that we have fought. Now, its a slightly difficult situation because its the taliban who are now out of power. We are fighting a group of insurgents. But nonetheless bo bergdahl was captured on the field of battle as were the taliban commanders. This was a Prisoner Exchange. To equate this with negotiating with terrorists i think misses the point of that aspect of it. That we were exchanging prisoners. Not dealing with a straight terrorist situation. So i dont think it sets that precedent at all and i think we need to be aware that that was what the president was facing. And was the exchange a good deal . Thats highly debatable. Im glad i wasnt the commander in chief having to make that call. Facing the deteriorating health of bo bergdahl and wondering if five taliban prisoners were worth saving his life. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. I would remind you that Prime Minister netanyahu of israel, no shrinking violent when it comes to terrorism, once exchanged over 1,000 palestinian prisoners for two israeli soldiers. Because that was a Prisoner Exchange. That was bringing home the people that israel wanted brought home and it wasnt easy. So this is not simply a matter of, you know, 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 in engaged in warfare has to face. I dont think we should diminish the difficulty of the importance of that decision. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mckeon mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee on Armed Services, the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. Walorski. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Walorski thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in support today of House Resolution 644, for which im a proud cosponsor. This bipartisan bill condemns and disapprovings the Obama Administrations 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 countrys 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 obamas 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 that these five terrorists will return to their radical jihadist fight against america and against our western allies. Nearly 30 of detainees reengage in terrorist activity after being released. In any and any 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 enact an active participant in decision making. Ill continue to work hard to ensure our homeland remains safe from terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington reserves. The gentleman from california. Mr. Mckeon mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and clige, a member of the colleague, a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. Desans at the. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida voiced for two minutes. Mr. Desantis mr. Speaker, it seems to me you have two issues here. One, congress, which we have an imnumerated power to make rules for detainees captured on land and water. Then you also have as the g. A. O. Report pointedth pointed out a funding prohibition that with held funds contingent on the president providing that notification. And as madison said in the federalist papers, the power of the purse is the most effectual weapon we have in terms of vindicating trts of our constituent. So whatever the president s article two 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 shouldnt apply in this situation because hardliners in the enemy camp can nix the deal. I got news for you, mr. Speaker. The hardlines 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 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 and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith i continue to reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from washington continues to reserve. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mckeon mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman schock. Inois, mr. Schock schock thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise mr. Schock thank you, 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 administrations disregard of the constitution. It reflects contempt for this congress and for the people who are represented here. Worst of all, his actions have emboldinned 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 hardens 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. But 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 barks here to United States soil. Its one thing for the president to defy any old law. Its another thing for the president to defy the very laws that he himself signed into law. President obama has gone even further. By refusing to notify congress of his intention to open the gates at gitmo and thus avoiding the anticipated political pressure that his carelessness would invite, the president has done the unthinkable. Hes negotiated with terrorists. Plain and simple. I would say that hes abused the office and the power which comes with it except in this case, he has done something that he doesnt even have the power to do. Now, tonight 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 of how this administration deals with terrorists and nothing he says tonight can hide the growing sense among jihadists around the world, that they finally have an american president who will negotiate with them. Its important for congress to tell the world where we stand, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on todays resolution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities against the president. The gentleman from washington. Mr. Smith i have to ask, what is a personality against the president . Personal attacks, perhaps . The speaker pro tempore theyre not allowed to engage in personal remarks related to the president. Mr. Smith i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. Jackson lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. Ms. Jackson lee i think it is important to take note of the importance of this debate and as ell the respect that we as members of congress owe each other and owe this institution. Ive long said that 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 of this place 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 the respect and each time we put our pen to painer 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. Ay, i believe that this is the speaker pro tempore im sorry. There is some sort of argument going on in the back of the chame mr. Smith im sorry, there is some sort of argument going on in the back of the chamber. The speaker pro tempore if members will take their conversations off the house floor. The gentlelady may continue. Ms. Jackson lee i thank the Ranking Member for his courtesy. 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. Now 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 require or 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 bramples of government. Let me be very clear. There is a debate on the powers that the president has, the war powers. Some say theres a statute he had to notify us. But there was an explanation and this very strong committee, the Armed Services committee with the chairman who i respect, the Ranking Member, had a very thorough hearing that many of us were able to read some of the transcripts where the secretary of defense came and explained and 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, spoken by secretary hay gal on june 11, 2014, and a very short window of opportunity we didnt want to jeopardize, both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, of which 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. If there are those of us who remember that brief glimpse that we had of the rescue, our men and women swooped down swooped down and picked up sernlt bergdahl. It was a military action. This is an unnecessary resolution. It is condemning, wrongly, the president had authority, and he explained what the action was. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expire. The gentleman from california is recognized. Ms. Jackson lee it is untimely and wrong. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized. May i inquire how much time is left . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california has 4 1 2 minutes the remain, the gentleman from washington has 2 1 2 minutes remaining. Mr. Mckeon we have just one more speaker. The inference is this happened on the spur of the moment and they didnt have time to tell congress. These negotiations went on for months. 80 to 90 people admitted they told in four of the department the executive branch, but not one member of congress in compliance with the law. At this time, we reserve, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from washington is recognized. Mr. Smith you are prepared to close . Im prepared to close as well. I yield myself the plans of our time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Smith on the point of the people noticed and how long this was going on for, yes, the negotiations were going on for three 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, that if the details of it had been leaked, it would have nixed the deal and they were deeply concerned about Sergeant Bergdahls health. This is an extraordinarily difficult call, i dont know if i would have done this deal or not. The commander in chief has that responsibility. Other leaders throughout the world, including Prime Minister netanyahu, gave up over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for two israeli soldiers. Those choices are very difficult. Im sure those 1,000 palestinians that were captured posed some danger to israel. But the question isnt whether or not the deal should be done but whether or not we should condemn the president for a clear violation of the law. I will come back to the fact that this president has only done what every other president before him did in exercising his article 2 authority under his interpretation and every previous executives, that this was legal. It has been implide throughout this resolution that the president looked at the law and said, yeah, not going to follow it. Thats not what he did he did what every president before him has done he said he believed it was within his Legal Authority to make this decision system of to put forward a resolution that says he didnt that says he intentionally broke the law, i think is wrong on its face. This president made a determination about his article 2 authorities and went forward with it. He did not knowingly violate the law. Secretary hagel has explained that repeatedly. And again, i said a little while ago that president bush did the exact same thing. Violated any number of different laws and said article 2 was the reason. Weve been told, that was years ago. I dont know what we would have done then. Ive offered up the opportunity for anyone on the other side to as roundly criticize those actions by president bush now, havent heard it. All of this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that this is more partisan than principled. This president is being condemned by the republican congress, all the other president s who have done it, not going to do anything about that. That leads to the belief that this is a partisan action. We should have had a hearing on this. Brought in secretary hagel he, explained himself. We criticized some of those decisions, thats appropriate this resolution is unprecedented. I think once again it shows that this body has become more partisan than principledism urge everyone to reject the resolution. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expire. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mckeon im leaving congress at the end of end of this year. But im sure at home ill still be able to hear blame on president bush for at least the next two years. But one thing we cant but one thing, we cant escape the fact that this went on for months. Even though they had to make a critical lastminute 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 at this time to give the concluding remarks on this debate to the vice chairman of the Armed Services committee, no, entleman from theres Something Else here. Also chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, the gentleman from texas, mr. Thornberry. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized to close. Mr. Thornberry how much time remains . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has 3 1 2 minutes. Mr. Thornberry i thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend the gentleman, mr. Rigell, for introducing this measure, shepherds it through the committee and onto the house floor. I think its important for us to vote on this measure really for two reasons. One is that its important for congress to speak clearly and directly when a president violates the law. Now and thats exactly what g. A. O. Said the administration did. They violated section 811. 8111. Now it is true that throughout the countrys 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 were no waiver authority, no ambiguity, there was no matter of interpretation. The law is clear, it says if youre going to transfer somebody from Guantanamo Bay, youve got to give 30 days notice. And they had meetings within the discussion that discussed whether to follow that 30day requirement and decide not to do it. It was a clear cut decision not to follow the law. Secondly, or in addition to that, the point was made by the gentleman from florida that they also violated the antideficiency act. Now theres 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 that they were not authorized to spend. Which also violated a separate law. And they didnt have to tell everybody. They could have just told the speaker and majority leader. I think theyre pretty safe at keeping secrets. And yet the president chose notment of the rule of law is important. It is fundamental to our system. And so its important to speak clearly on that. But heres the second reason. The constitution gives congress a variety of powers related to National Security. But in carrying out those powers, whether its 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. And 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 responsement responsibilities. Tomorrow night, were 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 dont have trust that the president and the military following his orders or the Intelligence Community following his orders are giving us that information, we cant have trust that we have the ability to carry out our duties under the constitution. On a bipartisan basis. In the last on a bipartisan basis in the last several year, we have set up oversight structures on cyber, terrorism, military operations that allow the military to operate in a complicated world but give us the information to get the information to carry out the oversight we have to have. Thats the other reason this is important. This undermine that trust that is necessary for an executive and legislative branch to defend the couldntfully a complex world. Far reason, i think its important for us to speak clearly about it. Because there are going to be more instances in the days ahead moments, Vice President s speaking at the violence against women act. Later, annual convention of Mental Health National Alliance of Mental Health. Securityuse homeland subcommittee on Border Security examines the domestic threats posed by the militant group, isis. Coverage beginning at 10 a. M. Eastern on cspan three. With congress back in session, here is a message to congress from one of the student cam competition winners. , and makes up 75 of our body. Take waterway, humanity would perish within a week. Water is most vital substance to a human body yet it is because of us humans that nearly 50 of lakes, bays comment as to where it are unsuitable due to pollution. In the u. S. , we have learned to take water for granted. Faucets, bottled water, and lush toilets. Water is a limited resource. Step outside and their diminishing condition tells a different story. Fragilepts in a riddle environment. Animals are not the only ones who suffer the negative effects of water pollution. Congress must provide federal funding. It must appear. Sternest wednesday during washington journal for this student cam competition. When joe biden was in the u. S. Senate, he was the chief sponsor of the violence against women act. Today the Vice President spoke at an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of its passage. He talked about the difficulties in getting the law passed and current efforts to stop Domestic Violence. From the National Archives in washington, this is an hour. Good afternoon. Im pleased to be here today with all of you on the 20th anniversary celebration of the violence against women act. For thousands of women, children, and families this law matters. I have survived Domestic Violence and understand all too well the emotional, physical, and financial toll it takes on individuals. I also saw the price it exacted on my son. In 1992, after 13 years of abuse when i realized it was happening to my son and i, i realized that the man i married was not the person i had such hope and love for and fear became an every day event. I could not endure it any longer. I decided to leave, knowing i was risking my life. But the option was not leaving, the threats, the violence, and control and the dayto day distress were no longer acceptable to me. After i made the decision to leave it took two years of planning our escape before i actually left. For those in this room you understand that. Because i was fully aware of the situation escalating and it did. Over the next few months my husband then harassed and stalked and even kidnapped me at one point. Soon after he found me again, shot me, and left me for dead. He eventually took his own life. I look back on that time and wonder how it might have been different for me if the law had been in place. If it had, my own level of awareness of what was happening would have been different. I did not know there was a name for what was happening to me. Domestic violence. At that time there was no national Domestic Violence hot line. Law enforcement was under equipped to understand and assist appropriately. Domestic violence shelters and programs were under resourced and there were not enough of them. In 1992, prosecutors and courts did not have the personnel or skills needed to assist survivors. To be clear, those that did provide services and assistance during that year of my life did the best they could. I feel fortunate to be here today still healing, still growing. I am fully aware there are too many to name who helped me at that time. This has made a positive difference in the lives of many but we are also very aware there is still more to do. Far too many are still suffering and trying to break free from the violence in their lives. 20 years ago while i and thousands of others were seeking safety there was a person already campaigning the idea women and children have a right to be safe and free from violence. At the helm of this idea and movement while Still Holding hands with many individuals and organizations, the person who had been most instrumental in moving this forward is our Vice President joe biden. [applause] thank you. Folks, there are heroes and there are heroes. My son after a year in iraq came home and with so many of his comrades that came back, we understand how the violence they witnessed and some endured how that had great, significant, and negative impact on their lives. Ruth is one of those tens of thousands of women who every day of her life before she left and even after she left was as much as being a prisoner of war, was as much as worrying about whether or not her captor was going to walk into your cell and physically abuse you. I tell you what. There are so many, so many heroes like ruth that we owe an incredible debt of gratitude to. And youre a remarkable person, ruth. You really are. My guess is having gone through some interesting things myself that every time you stand up and talk about it, it all comes back. Its not a distant memory. It can be brought up in an instant. So thank you for having the courage to continue to do it. This beautiful, bright woman to my left is my daughter. Well my daughterinlaw, technically. But she is my daughter, kathleen. The reason i asked her, she is embarrassed by doing this, whether shed come up is to let you know like all of you this is sort of stamped into our dna. Kathleen volunteers with delaware volunteer lawyers program. They have a thousand volunteers. And has raised money and given her time and effort to help change the lives of a lot of women. My son has started one of those advanced victim units as attorney general, as we used to say in the senate, excuse the point of personal privilege, but im proud. My daughter who has her masters in social work, runs a foundation for at risk youth and focuses on teaching young men about what they should be, what they should understand about violence against women. And so kathleens husband hunter is chairman of the World Food Program usa but also volunteers his time, everything from shelters to gathering up lawyers to represent women. I just wanted you to see that the reason why were eventually the reason why were going to eventually win this whole battle that you helped start, is because of young women and men like the ones i mentioned and all of you in the audience. So i just wanted to really just brag a little bit about you. [applause] im sorry im late. The white house senior staff can tell you it is all the president s fault. Really not. I was actually rewriting a little piece of this speech. On your chairs, i think you may have been given a copy of one is too many, 20 years of fighting against violence against women and girls. Victoria nurse, professor nurse, who was on my staff early on, my council now, led that effort. And then there is a larger version of that same study that has more detail. The reason i mention it is one of the things i think were all committed to making sure never happens is that somehow we get to a point where we think weve passed this law and now were finished. Not even close to being finished. I should have thanked david and everyone here at the national i want to say you saw the video. You for sharon, thank being here. The one lovetarted foundation after her daughter was killed by her exboyfriend at the university of regina. Sharon, you have changed the lives of thousands of young girls and women and you have given families hope. Few just 20 years ago people wanted to talk about violence against women as a National Epidemic alone something to do something about it. That kicking your wife in the stomach or smashing her in the face or pushing her down the stairs and public was repugnant. Our society basically turned a blind eye and hardly anyone ever intervened directly area and other than my father and a few other people i know. And no one, virtually no one called the crime. It was a Family Affair. Laws, state laws when we attempted at a state or federal level to design laws to prevent actions that were said that we are now are celebrated i was told, many of us were told it would cause the disintegration of the family. That was the phrase used. Causing the disintegration of the family. When we talked about giving those women away out i was told that others were told that shelters were nothing more than indoctrination centers. This is 20 years ago. Indoctrination centers. It is in the record. Indoctrination centers. Were afraid to call the police. Call the you not police . You have to stand in front of your husband and say he did this. Knowing that within an hour to a day he would be back. And you would have a problem. Youve these men, why dont just fight back and all you men who are on the right side of the issue but i said speaking to chambers of commerce and all mens groups as some folks in here from delaware no, i did all up and down our state. How many of you guys when the bully knocked you down in the schoolyard to take your lunch money new what your father and mother told you, just hunter in the nose. Make his nosebleed and he will stop. We stand up, and if you who had the courage to do that. Who among you did that . Expect,the hell did you 2 to do to a man and 200 pounds. There was no national hotline. Few Police Departments had trained personnel. Seeial victim units like we thatiska who is in deserves a round of applause. She is not here. The police officers, male and as well ase officers prosecutors, even judges were not trained to understand that this was not a family matter. This was the ugliest form of violence that exists. , everyone consequence seemed content to keep this dirty Little National secret hidden away in the closet. Even though our legal system as we learned there were scores of states that had written into their laws the basic presumption that if a woman was raped or beaten or abused by her husband or someone she knew, she must have done sosomething wrong. A great advocate can tell you. We have a law that i did not know about until i wrote this law that said if you were brutally raped by a stranger and he was convicted it would be firstdegree rape with a severe penalty but if you knew, if you knew him and he was as brutal as a stranger rape he could not under the law be convicted of firstdegree rape. Assumption that you should have known better, there must have been something or somehow it was a lesser crime to rape a woman if she was a voluntary a voluntary social companion. In effect, date rape was not rape. Not rape at all. Protectiona of legal was totally disregarded. In some states, ingrained in their statute was the 800yearold commonlaw notion that women were property. Example, texas and other states, if a mans wife left him or was seen with another man, the husband could shoot the other man or should the wifes lover. Infidelity, never go to jail on the theory that killing was the protection of his property. His wife. 20 years ago that made a man guilty of manslaughter for socalled provocation defense. There is a tragic history about how women in our society is treated and how they are viewed. I will not go into it in the interest of time, you know all you all know the origin of the phrase rule of thumb erie it the size of a rod that you could be your wife with. 14thcentury england. That was the background. Wrote the violence against women act in 1990. I wrote it because there was not a lot of support to write it. At the time. For a lot of reasons. People whoasked by do not know me, i have heard it whispered last year, once a year i have all of you to my home. His mother beaten . Was his wife victimized, was his sister . The answer is no. I was fortunate enough to be raised by a gentle, decent man. Who ingrained in all of my siblings and me the greatest abuse that be committed by a man or woman was the abuse of power and the cardinal sin among those man to physically abuse a woman or child. Meant it, he believed it. This was a gentle man. He called it are baric. But i believed and so did my incredible staff over 20 years that the only way to change this culture was to expose it. Mrs. Holmes once said the best disinfectant as sunlight. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We just shine a life, what happened to so many other women and by the way, abuse is an equal opportunity employer. Doctors abuse, lawyers abuse, plumbers abuse, street people abuse. I found in all the time i have spent on this i find no education, based on background, economic standing. Some of the worst most imprisoned women in america are woman of socalled privilege. Because it is not to be spoken of in polite society. People are required to look , we are required to look at these crimes straight in the eye. That is when things began to change. I said to ruth, i was giving her a hug and telling her that much i loved her and how brave she was. I said it to you and i will say to everybody. You helped pull the bandaid off. You helped heal away the scab. That is why we held public hearings. I had some senators say some of this is so salacious we should do it in camera. We should do it not publicly in secret. Ring and witnesses but build a record that is to salacious. Knowd to let the nation because i was convinced and remain convinced in the basic decency of the American People and if they knew they would begin to demand change. One thing that surprised me. I expected resistance from the same quarters who held that this was a Family Affair erie it i did not expect resistance from my natural allies. National womens groups, Natural National civil rights groups. I heard that video that gave me more credit than i deserved. Was right in doing this, was this about taking the eye off abortion or gender equality, what is this about, what is going on here . Theirof people from perspective legitimately worried that if we turn the nations attention to this ugly little secret it would take focus off of other priorities that were very important and remain very important. Civilader of one of those liberties organizations told my staff that my preoccupation was a fad. Go i am serious. Even the organized federal and state judiciary took aim. Then the bill was blasted in 1991. Calling it an openended and called the civil rights remedy so sweeping it would involve the federal courts and a whole host of domestic relationship disputes. Some judges said some woman would use this to leverage divorce settlements erie it despite these road blocks we were convinced we could succeed if we tainted a true picture of scale of the cap, violence and depth of the ignorance and stereotypes that were used to justify. We began this tedious rss exposing the stain on our National Character and it was a long journey, over four years but if you seminal moments i believed turned the tide to get us to where we are today erie it up serving the 20th anniversary of its passage. Testimony the form of before the committee, broadcast to the whole nation. We called Health Professionals who testified to the potentially lethal nature of this violence in the longterm psychological damage. We called advocates who testified to the desperate need of funding for shelters and educational programs. Were the it life survivors who had the courage to testify. Nicole snow on the video. Goryaid, it is not the details you need to hear to understand, it is the suffering. Self shame and the disruption of the survivors. Ife that cannot often be heard she asked the committee a powerful question. How do i get this message that it was my fault . How do i get this message that it was my fault . She was brutally raped when she was 15 years old by her boyfriend. She did not testify until a decade later. How did i get the message that this was my fault . Willtine whose last name i not use, i rub her testimony vividly. She testified as a powerful example, how did i get this message that it was my fault. She went to a Small College and southwestern pennsylvania. She was a freshman in college. She went to a fraternity party, her girlfriends boyfriend often offered to walk her home but he said he needed to stop by his dorm to pick up a coat a cousin was so cold. She walked with him and he dragged her in the room and he raped her. I will never forget what she said. The first thing i did was run back to my dormitory on the fourth floor and go into the shower to take a scalding shower. Friend who was walking in to use the bathroom. She asked me what happened erie it she said i told her and then she explained you have been raped. Heres what she said and her testimony. I did not even know i had been raped. Until she told me that even though i knew him and was a friend of his is violent act against me was still rape. Woman whoeducated went on to graduate from the university of pennsylvania is doing great things now. Remember marla hanson. The bright, beautiful model who with her face in her wits. She was in an apartment complex in manhattan. She moved out because her landlord kept hitting on her but she could not get back her rent deposit. She kept calling and finally he called and said all right. After you finish work tonight meet me in the restaurant that is in the first floor of a manhattan apartment building. Also has a bar. She brought the cash but he asked her just about side and then he turned and walked away and two men her face. You may remember the case. Because she continued to refuse his advances. Trialid at her tile the defense attorney spent 20 minutes at the trial asking me why was i wearing a miniskirt western mark it was viewed as inappropriate. As an appropriate line of questioning. Why . Not, why had those men slashed my face and who paid for it . Why was i wearing a miniskirt western mark the survivors and so many others whose stories are emblazoned on my mind. Helped change the national on position. Not joe biden of the United States senate. The survivors. Staff, i had an incredible staff erie it a lot of home i brought back in. Kathy russell, secretary over at Womens Affairs over at the state department and professor victoria nurse who helped write this legislation. I convinced her to come back as my chief counsel. Knew erie it new. We had to take this beyond. What a lot of people were beginning to think were celebrated instances of violence like what we see on television today. Not a pattern. Victoria had a brilliant idea. Demonstrate these were not isolated cases, she had the idea of putting together a report i can when i showed you held a moment ago. The report was called violence against women. A week in the life of america. , a lot of work. 21,000 specific crimes against women that were reported every week. Every week in america at the time. The 1,100,000of , aggravated assaults, murders, rapes against women committed in their home and reported to police that year. Only reported. Tell the whole story. For every woman who is raped there are seven women who do not report. That was a statistic back then. Of survivors. Ries from all walks of life, all parts of the country. North, south, east, west, the midwest. One young woman had her head put in advice on a workbench by her father crushing her skull as punishment. And abuse. Another who had both her arms broken with a hammer by her husband because she did not respond quickly enough. Several others have their heads beaten by pipes by the men who professed the great love for them. A 15yearold girl stabbed by her exboyfriend just released from prison for beating her before. So many other cases, famous journalists daughter who was killed after having a stayover and her husband following her to massachusetts because there is no Computer System to be able to know it was done. They let him loose. He killed her. More than anything, as we paint this honest picture of whats going on in america, Public Opinion began to change as more men i might add and women, but men spoke out as well. The terms of the debate shifted. We were able to finally forge a national consensus, something of the this time had not been done. We proved it was not a fad. I was asked by the Domestic Violence coalition because we did not have the type of support needed from my allies. I was standing with the National Group who did not want to focus on it. They were focusing on it. They saw people coming in every single day. They saw their faces, looked in their eyes. I knew we would not get much progress here nationally so i started going around the country meeting with these groups. I was invited to rhode island to meet with the Rhode Island Coalition for Domestic Violence. [applause] [laughter] deb . Its been a long time, debbie. She met me in this thing cap and the state capital with some of her compatriots. They told me the story and i told them i needed help. Remember . I said down there the National Groups, they just think this is a diversion. I remember the look on your face. God, its good to see you. Its been a long time. [laughter] i went to Washington State and then something began to happen. Not me, the people who look these women and children in the eye every day, they said, w and it all culminated in a meeting i called in my Senate Office on a famous table left to me by a senior senator, a conference table. National womens organization, civil rights group, Civil Liberties groups, all of them are my natural allies my whole career. I can tell where you were sitting. I remember i really do. I remember every person in that room and where they were sitting at that table. I made one last plea. On the surface there were some legitimate concerns to increase the penalties for rape. You dont want to did this, dont want to do that. No movement. Finally its why i love you i think this is a quote. What are we doing . Remember that . You said what are we doing . Everything changed. From that moment, ellie. Ellie headed up now at the time. Everybody finally said, oh, god. Youre right, ellie. Not joe. Ellie, youre right. [laughter] im serious. Bruce is here. I dont know if pat is [applause] pat shes wonderful. She really is. [applause] pat can tell you for sure the ending is its great having a man doing this wasnt the case. I asked pat why. You said you dont understand. You explained it to me. It was a real insight for me. I do remember it. At any rate, it changed. The National Association of women put together, i believe, the number was about 20,000 volunteers. I dont remember exactly the number. I should know. Everything began to change. The National Association of women judges said they had enough, remember . [applause] they took issue with the bill. Prominent women lawyers stood up and guess what . They won. We only ended up getting 61 votes. 39 people voted no. Everyone looking for a great excuse from conservatives. The federal court says this is a bad idea. Even with all this help, the bill could not stand on its own because it included a provision that im sad is not in it. I had written in a civil rights provision. I wanted people to be able to women to take control of their lives. I wanted people to be able to, know what the product no matter what the prosecutor said or did, i want them to be able to go to court and have them take away the car, the job, the money, demand because their civil rights have been violated. I could not get it passed on its own. I had spent years writing what became the biden crime bill that put 1000 cops on the street, prevention, all sorts of other things. We built such a constituency for that so i knew it would pass so i introduced it as an amendment to the crime bill. Thats how we were able to save the civil rights provision. The bill passed and president clinton, i thank him for it. And the attorney general, usually weak senators pass bills. We never implement them. Actually let me implement and pick the first director and i went to Bonnie Campbell who you saw on the video. [applause] shes a tough lawyer, former attorney general. She took the first office and became the director there at the Justice Department in six years later, Justice Rehnquist got his way, and part, with a 54 decision ruling the civil rights provision of the law was unconstitutional. I believe that was a tragedy and wrong, wrongly decided. I have not given up on that. We will get back to that later. [applause] but from the beginning we knew this was only beginning. We knew there would be continued resistance. Chief Justice Rehnquist, other conservative justices, struck it down on civil rights provisions. The rest of the law remained in place and the societal norms had begun to change. More has to change. With each reauthorization, we improve the law including protections for women. We added the definition of dating violence to protect women from violent boyfriends as we did more than dirty states followed. 30 states followed. We added a new Training Program for Health Care Providers to screen for Domestic Abuse because we no long term and physical abuse over time is serious and continues to be so. According to the cdc just this past year, and other researchers, chronic stress from Domestic Violence is toxicity within the body. It is associated with longterm Health Problems like asthma, increased bursts of depression, alcohol, drug use. Why are we surprised . We talked about posttraumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. Why are we surprised . 20 years ago people said i was going overboard. I was not a doctor and did not have truth. All you had to do was understand other circumstances. In 2013, despite the new Republican Party obstruction, we made Services Available regardless of gender identity or sexual identification. [applause] because of very strong women in the senate like patty murray and others, we also restored authority to Indian Tribes and indian nations. [applause] to prosecute nonindian abusers for Domestic Violence against native american women. What is happening as federal prosecutors were not going on the reservation. The cases were being dropped. They could not the tried and the courts but not anymore. Im so grateful to all of you are making this and so much more happen. You saved lives. Yearly Domestic Violence rates have dropped between 1993 and 2010 and you saved the nation billions of dollars, almost 13 billion in the inverted costs social, medical, lost productivity, just in the last six years alone. Equally as important, you improved our Justice System. High rates of conviction for special victims units, fundamental reforms in state laws. The National Domestic hotline, which i visit not infrequently, had 3. 4 million women and some men receive help. Imagine the courage it takes. Imagine the courage it takes when your abuser leaves the home and you scour up the courage to pick up the phone and say, i i i need help. I need help. Oh, my god. I hope he does not come back. I need help. You worry when the phone bill comes in if it will be recorded as a longdistance number. Is an 800 number recorded . What incredible courage it takes. We also learned that the road to recovery is only completed when theres an actual conviction, actual proof. Up to that point in our society it was he saidshe said. The one thing i think all the women who have been abused in this audience would say is valid and of the fact that i was abused. Or if it was stranger rape, validation of the fact that i was abused in the man is no longer in society. That is the most palliative thing that can happen for a womans recovery. Along the way, youve helped change the culture from refusal to intervene to responsibility to act. We have a long, long way to go but it has begun. On the president and i assumed office, as jen can tell you, what do you want . I said i just want one thing. I want to be able to bring in the Womens Office inside my office and the elements of the crimes inside my office. I was lucky. Lynn rosenthal, many of you know, came in to run the operation. It makes a difference from the white house if a cabinet member gets a phone call. I promise you. They are all good people. It changes the priority. It goes from maybe to a red light goes off. The president has been 1000 behind this. The president wrote the recovery act. In the midst of the worst recession in history, we put 200 Million Dollars in to help state agencies who were being clobbered because of state budget being emasculated to keep them alive. Its fair to say i probably call the first Cabinet Meeting in history to insist that every cabinet member focus on addressing violence against women, have a policy in their office that had no tolerance, begin to figure out ways to help us focus on date rape in college campuses. I did not have to say much to arne duncan, did i . Hes taken this to the place where it is probably not very popular, nor am i, with College President s because they have an obligation to speak out. They have an obligation to become i remember she used to say to become sensitized. Im serious. [applause] im going on so long because i feel so strongly but we modernized the definition of great under the president s leadership and National Crime statistics. We zeroed in on Sexual Assault and put in title mind to follow through. We have so much more to do because there is still sex bias that remains in the american criminal Justice System dealing with stereotypes. She deserved it. She wore short skirts. We are not going to succeed until america embraces the notion, my fathers notion, that under no circumstance does a man ever have a right to raise a hand to a woman other than in selfdefense under no circumstances and no means no whether its in the bedroom or on the streets, or in the back of a car. No means no. Rape is rape. No exceptions. Until we reach that point, we are not going to succeed. I believe i believe that we can get to that point. It is still imperfect but the change is real thats happened. I mentioned earlier about the civil rights call to action and im announcing the summit on an equal rights of protection for women to bring together the leading legal scholars to revisit the civil rights remedy and violence against women. [applause] i have hoped over the years [applause] we continue to make progress and still, in some places, its a dirty little secret. I do believe that it has made clear that you cannot talk about human rights, Human Dignity without talking about the right of every woman on the planet to be free from violence and free from fear. [applause] its a right that flows from the docket behind me, the inalienable right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. It is in enshrined in every document we pay tribute to. It is the right that measures the character of the nation. It is the single most significant indirect way to measure the character of the nation. When violence against women is no longer societally accepted and when we understand one case is too many, thats what i want to change. I cannot close without paying special thanks again to carol who has been with me on this journey for too many years. [applause] people like mary claire who flooded and burnedout in new orleans. She helped more than 1000 men, women, in children from counseling, legal aid, Employment Services all under a single roof. Where are you . Stand up. [applause] the good news is there are a lot of carols and marys i did not recognize. There are a lot and communities all across america. This is a fine thats not going to stop, guys. Its not going to stop. It will not end the violence, but until we get to a point where women are treated equally, where we expelled from our consciousness the notion that it is ever the womans fault ever the womans fault until that happens we are not going to win. I believe it will happen because of young kids like kathleen, my daughter, so many of you young women and men in here. Thank you. I love you. This is the most meaningful thing ive ever done. [applause] i really do have to go meet with the president. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] quacks this weekend, American History tv is live from baltimore for the 200th anniversary of the starspangled banner. Later at 6 p. M. Eastern we will tour of fort mchenry and hear how war came to baltimore and in 1814 and why Francis Scott key was there to witness the fight area saturday night former president s george w. Bush and bill clinton launched the president ial leadership scholars or grandma in washington, bc sunday afternoon, live coverage with comments from Iowa Democratic senator bob harkin and bill and hillary clinton. On cspan 2, on book tv, author Ken Silverstein on the secret world of oil. Democratic senator from new york Kristin Gillibrand on her life and politics and her call for women to rise up and make a difference in the world. Find our Television Schedule on cspan. Org and let us know about the programs youre watching. Call us. The email us. Or send us a tweet at csp ancomments. Join the conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. Philip amann said airstrikes alone cannot defeat the Islamist Militant Group isis. His comments were part of a broader hearing on bush Foreign Policy which also discussed israel, syria, iran, and the russianukrainian conflict. This is just under two hours. I welcome members of the public to the sitting of the Foreign Affairs select committee. This is one of our biannual meetings with the foreign secretary, the last of which took lace on the 20th of march. Can i give a warm welcome to our new foreign secretary . We tried a few times to get you while you are secretary of state. You are always taking off overseas but we are glad you are here. On behalf of the committee, i give you a warm welcome and congratulate you on your appointment. I hope you have been briefed on the groups we will ask you questions on. We will start with iraq and syria. Perhaps you would like to talk about the possible error war in syria and whether or not you think it is in our National Interest to join in it. As the committee is aware, the United States is already carrying out air strikes in support of the Iraqi Security forces and the kurdish against isil. The Prime Minister has made clear that we were all nothing out. At this stage, there is not a specific task and therefore nothing for us to consider. We are clear other has to be a comprehensive response for the challenge posed by isil to absolutely be clear that airstrikes alone, whoever they are delivered by, will not be the solution but it is possible that air activity could be part of a wider package which involves Political Initiative and crucially, must involve an iraqis led regionally supported operation on the ground to push back the games isil are playing. Should i infer for that you have had an Informal Task when you went to get all of your ducks in a row that you will get specific tasks . We have not had anything specific but it is well understood by a group of likeminded nations that the u. S. Is looking at developing a policy for dealing with isil but will deal with creating a very wide coalition. Secretary kerry and secretary hagel are in the golf this week. They made it clear at the nato summit meeting last week that they hope for extensive nato support as well. Not necessarily support in delivering military activity. Secretary kerry made it clear that he understands the different nations will have different appetites and will want to contribute in different ways to what will be a there are some conversations going on, if asked to move this is what you would like us to do. I think the u. S. Is aware that this is a sensitive subject in this country and we want to look at what kind of package of action is proposed to do with the challenge. We want to think carefully of how we might effectively contribute to that. What our allies are proposing to do. And what position we should take and asked the Prime Minister made clear yesterday in this kind of situation where we are clearly this would be premeditated involvement if we did decide involvement was appropriate, we would come back to the house of commons for a debate and vote on that proposition. Quacks if the raf was deployed would it be because they were going to have and make a strategic difference to something that they u. S. Is doing or would it be more a political gesture of support and solidarity . They have different niche capabilities. It is an extremely capable aircraft for the type of operation that the u. S. Is currently carrying out. It is probably realistic to say, given the scale of the United States rather than a shortage of military hardware. The Kurdistan Regional government and the request for help and the Iraqi Government. It is clear that any activity whether it is supply of weapons and equipment or if it is a question of military activity, and has to be something done at the request of the government and iraq. If it has to be endorsed by bag data, it is a legally responsible entity. This Campaign Needs to be a rocky iraqi led. Can you say a little bit more about the government that has been announced . And have committed and the sunni region, if they are at all involved in bringing the country together. The program that the Prime Minister has set out looks like a sensible program. All the right noises are being made by the relevant people. It has said that names in the government and names around the iraqi political scene have been around a long time. We will have to wait and see the level of demonstrated commitment to the program that has been set out. It will represent a significant progress. I should also say that the role of the president has been significant. It is clearly important that they support the formation of this government. They have focused attention on the need to build an inclusive Iraqi Government to push back isil. Agendas about kurdish separatism, looking for a few months. In terms of tribes, there is less than we would like at this stage. It will take more than simply standing up the government in baghdad. It would allow them to switch back and we need to see a sustained outreach. There, longstanding and justified grievances that have been ignored by the previous regime. Only by doing that in the long term will he succeed in gradually weaning them away from isil. Resume only the support would be conditional on demonstrating that. Bringing people in the right direction. I dont see this as conditionality in terms of the lever that we are using to try to dictate the behavior of a suffering government. I see it much more in terms of an analysis by us and the United States that this can only work if there is a credible Iraqi Government on the ground. Much as we might like to intervene, there is a sensible intervention that is likely to be affected that we could pursue. Clearly, iran is a major player. Major influence over what happens. It with the u. K. Government under any circumstances will the u. K. Government, under any circumstances, talk to assad and try to influence what happens in the operation against isil in syria . We are in the process of reestablishing an embassy in tehran and we hope over the coming months that we will find that we are increasingly able to engage in a wide range of discussions with iranians and countries that have diplomatic relations. The situation is very different. They have lost all legitimacy and the barbaric treatment of their own populalation which cannot be excused and it would be, in my judgment, inappropriate and counterproductive to talk about engaging with the assad regime. It has driven recruits into the arms of isil. We will you that message loud and clear from you. Is it u. K. Policy islamic state, whether in iraq or syria, must be destroyed totally . Or would containment be on the table . I heard the u. S. Secretary of state saying very clearly on friday and it is my view as well that there is no compromise, there is no containment strategy. It has to be a strategy to crush the ideology from forces of support and that resource. I apologize for not welcoming you when you came to the committee. And the consequence of that, he has to take on isis in syria if he is going to destroy it. The you accept there is a much higher risk intervening in the west point of view in syria . Driving isis set of Northern Iraq . Given the shadows of extremists as well, what is your assessment . The strategists talk about the need for theater. They are very significant and we are dealing with different situations. I would like to move on to the coalition of the willing which, quite rightly, we need a sort of Regional Coalition to take on isis. The idea that you can just defeat them, it needs troops on the ground. It should be western troops defeating this counsel. But what exactly should be the military role of this coalition . The Regional Coalition is one thing but to actually define it is quite another. We can sit in this room and postulate all sorts of shapes of coalition and it depends on what the willing are willing to do. Which would be more directly engaged