[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 140 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5505-H5512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROHIBITING THE TRANSFER OF ANY DETAINEE AT UNITED STATES NAVAL
STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 863, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5351) to prohibit the transfer of any individual
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 114-744 is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5351
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ANY TRANSFER OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) Prohibition.--No amounts authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise available for any department or agency of the
United States Government may be used during the period
specified in subsection (b) to transfer, release, or assist
in the transfer or release to or within the United States,
its territories, or possessions, or to any foreign country or
entity, of any individual detained at Guantanamo.
(b) Specified Period.--The period specified in this
subsection is the period that--
(1) begins on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) ends on the earlier of--
(A) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing
appropriations for military activities of the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2017; or
(B) January 21, 2017.
(c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined.--In this
section, the term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means
an individual located at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(1) is not a national of the United States (as defined in
section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) or a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense; or
(B) otherwise detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.R. 5351.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 5351 offered by Mrs.
Walorski of Indiana.
H.R. 5351 would temporarily suspend the transfer of detainees held at
the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. Under this
bill, the suspension would last until either the National Defense
Authorization Act for the next fiscal year becomes law or until the new
President takes office on January 21, 2017.
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances of the last several months have
brought the need for such legislation to light.
In 2009, a special panel convened by the Obama administration
evaluated every detainee then at GTMO. The Obama administration made it
clear at the time that it was lawful for some detainees to be held,
without charges, pursuant to the laws of war. Such detainees, the Obama
administration believed, included those who had a ``significant
organizational role with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.''
Other detainees, the Obama administration believed, should continue to
be lawfully held in 2009 included those who had ``advanced training or
experience,'' a ``history of associations with extremist activity,'' or
had ``expressed recidivist intent.''
In other cases, the Obama administration has recommended that certain
detainees be prosecuted and some sent to other countries. But even for
those GTMO detainees to be sent elsewhere, the Obama administration
noted that the United States had the legal authority to hold these
detainees, and the detainees could still be threatening.
The Obama administration argued then and since that a few selected
detainees could be transferred to other countries from GTMO only if
``feasible'' and ``appropriate'' security measures could be instituted
to mitigate the dangers posed by these very threatening individuals.
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why this legislation is needed.
Since January, the Obama administration has sent 46 detainees from
GTMO to other countries. In August alone, 15 detainees were
transferred. I worry that whatever arrangements might exist in the
receiving countries will be woefully insufficient to keep the danger at
bay. I am concerned that these detainees will again threaten the United
States or our partners, just as other detainees have done. I fear
detainees are being hurriedly moved from GTMO in order to fulfill an 8-
year-old campaign promise to close GTMO.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sensible and sound response.
Today, there are 61 detainees in GTMO. The Obama administration has
made it clear that at least 20 of these detainees should be sent
elsewhere.
H.R. 5351 prevents any GTMO detainee transfers for the next several
months. The bill prohibits GTMO transfers to the United States or to
other countries until the National Defense Authorization Act for this
fiscal year takes effect or until the new administration assumes
office, whichever happens first. This means the new President will be
able to consider anew the grave risks which GTMO transfers pose. It
will also mean that the new administration will know how the provisions
of a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act will govern its
actions.
The United States military notes that it is ``committed to ensuring
detainees are kept in a safe, secure, humane environment'' at GTMO. It
also reports that ``intelligence gained at GTMO has prevented terrorist
attacks and saved lives.'' A pause in GTMO transfers prevents rash and
sudden actions to empty GTMO on an arbitrary and self-imposed deadline.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I strongly support H.R. 5351, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Virginia described very well the process that the
Obama administration put in place in 2009. It was a significant
improvement.
The real problem that we had with Guantanamo was, when it was
originally conceived as a place to hold detainees under the law of war,
there were, at one point, nearly 800 detainees there.
A lot of them were brought there without much in the way of vetting
or assurances that they were, in fact, threats. In fact, under the Bush
administration, well over 500 of those detainees were released, and
there really wasn't much of a process. Somewhere in the neighborhood of
over 20 percent of those detainees did return to the battlefield and
did present a threat to the country. There simply wasn't a process.
So, as Mr. Forbes described quite well, in 2009, the Obama
administration put in place a process. At the time, there were 242
detainees remaining in Guantanamo Bay. The process they put in place
was to go through every single one of them and say: Who are these
people? What is their threat level? They evaluated all of them and put
them into different categories. They determined that some were not a
threat and could be released.
[[Page H5506]]
Regrettably, something we don't like to talk about, as I sort of
alluded to earlier, is that a number of these people were picked up
erroneously, either with the wrong name or the wrong information, and
we really didn't have any evidence on them, or the evidence we thought
we had turned out to be wrong. A fair number of these detainees were
being held really for no good reason, so they tried to determine who
those were.
Now, there are also some very, very bad people at Guantanamo Bay. As
Mr. Forbes also indicated, the President reaffirmed our right under the
law of war to hold those people, and I support that very strongly. But
what the Obama administration has done to get that number down to 61 is
they have transferred the ones that a board of defense, intelligence,
security, and Justice Department experts had determined were not a
threat to the United States and were transferable. The problem that
came up was: Transferable, but to where? Who would take these people?
Then, there was the last provision that Mr. Forbes also mentioned.
Wherever they were transferred to, the Obama administration wanted to
make sure that there were some assurances from those countries that
they would look after those folks, hold them securely, and make sure
that they were not a threat.
So that is what has got us down to the 61 number is the release of
detainees that this board, again, of defense, intelligence, Justice
Department, and security experts determined were not a threat to the
United States and were transferable.
Now, of that number, since 2009, that returned--at this point, I
think just this morning, two more detainees were determined to have
returned to the battlefield; for the most part, this is return to
fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan--is still a number around 6
percent of all folks that have been released from Guantanamo Bay, under
the Obama administration, that have been deemed to have returned to the
battlefield. The previous group, under the Bush administration, was
somewhere between 20 and 30 percent, depending on how it was
calculated. So, they have done a very careful job of who should be
vetted and where they should be transferred to.
Of the 61 that are left, there are 20 that are currently eligible for
transfer. There are 10 in the military commission system and 31 others
that are reserved for continued law of war detention.
The Obama administration is of the opinion that there are only 20 of
the remaining 61 that are potentially transferable. They have been
vetted through this very lengthy process that I have described that has
been successful to the point that, again, only 6 percent have been
deemed to have returned to the battlefield.
What this bill would do is stop this President, frankly, from being
President on this issue for the last however many months there are left
in his administration. If, in fact, we can find secure places to
transfer these 20, then it is the right thing to do, and the President
ought to be allowed to do it. There is no reason to stop him from doing
it.
Now, the argument that you will hear repeatedly from the other side
is: we can't take the chance. Yes, they have been vetted; yes, the
percentage is low; but this person might do something bad if we release
them.
I would suggest that that turns the American justice system on its
head. There are a whole lot of people walking the streets in this
country who might do something bad. You do all kinds of analyses to
determine that they might. Maybe we should lock them up, no trial, no
process, no nothing, and say: look, better safe than sorry. But that is
not the way we do things.
Now, we do have a process here. And there are some that, under the
law of war, are determined to be dangerous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
Once we have determined that they are not a threat, under our
opinion, and are transferable, to say, look, sorry, we are just going
to hold you because we want to, is really a violation of the U.S.
Constitution and due process of law.
To hold this process up even for a few months is not necessary. As I
said, we are talking about 20 people that the Obama administration is
trying to determine if they can find a safe place to send them.
This is not about closing Guantanamo. I strongly support closing
Guantanamo. I will skip that argument for the purpose of this debate.
That is not going to happen. We have had votes on the House floor.
There is not support in Congress for it. There is a prohibition in law
that continues to be in law on transferring any of those detainees to
the United States or spending any money to detain them in the United
States. So it is not going to happen.
The question really is about the 20 people who have been deemed not
to be security threats to the U.S., who have been deemed to be
transferable, and whether or not we can transfer them. This bill would
say ``no'' and would hold those 20 people for the next 5 or 6 months,
regardless of the evidence and regardless of the vetting process.
Now, it is possible these 20 people won't be transferred, that we
won't find a country for them, but there is no reason to strip the
President of his lawful authority to do that.
Again, I want to emphasize that the Obama administration has gone
through a careful vetting process, unlike the Bush administration, so I
don't think we should interfere with that vetting process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague who has done such a
great job in working this piece of legislation.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express strong support
for my bill, H.R. 5351, which would prohibit the transfer of any
individual detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the news broke that two more former GTMO
detainees have rejoined militant groups. This is just the latest case
of GTMO detainees being released, only to return to the fight. In fact,
the President's own Director of National Intelligence reports 30
percent of former detainees are known or suspected to have reengaged in
terrorist activities. Yet, the President continues to release more and
more detainees.
When President Obama came to office, there were 240 detainees at
GTMO. The number is now down to 61, after the most recent and largest
ever transfer last month. Another 20 have been cleared for transfer.
When Hoosiers in my district hear these numbers, they worry that
these transfers are leaving our Nation open to new vulnerabilities and
will make Americans less safe. I could not agree more.
While I wish we didn't have to stand here debating this bill, it is
an unfortunate reality that our President remains willing to continue
putting a misguided campaign promise ahead of the national security.
Why else would detainees, who were once deemed too dangerous to
transfer by President Obama's own GTMO task force, have been released
to begin with?
That is what happened with 8 of the detainees who were part of the
largest-ever transfer of GTMO detainees last month. The task force's
recommendation was reversed. These dangerous detainees were
redesignated as safe for transfer, and they were sent to the United
Arab Emirates.
With all this in mind, it was, sadly, no surprise when, in March of
this year, Mr. Paul Lewis, the President's Special Envoy for Guantanamo
Closure, testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that
``Americans have died because of GTMO detainees.''
What else will it take for the President to change course on this
flawed campaign promise?
As a recently released, unclassified report on Guantanamo detainees
highlighted, the individuals remaining at GTMO today represent truly
the worst of the worst of the post-9/11 era. These are hardened
terrorists. These are al Qaeda bomb makers, bodyguards, plotters, and
recruiters. Among them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the
September 11 attacks. Americans are safer with these dangerous
detainees securely locked up.
{time} 0930
I have been to GTMO. I have seen our military, the greatest fighting
force
[[Page H5507]]
the world has ever seen, standing guard to protect the American people
from those who would do us harm. I know the GTMO facility is the
safest, most secure place for these detainees.
But this isn't just about the terrorists themselves. There are also
significant concerns about the capacity and the capabilities of the
countries receiving these transfers and the adequacy and transparency
of the agreements being made by their governments.
Take, for example, the recent case of a former detainee who was
released to Uruguay, but sparked an international manhunt after he
disappeared shortly before the Rio Summer Olympics; or the former
detainee who was transferred to Sudan, a state sponsor of terrorism,
and reappeared in Yemen as a leader of the al Qaeda affiliate there.
It is clear these individuals desire to return to the battlefield,
and that the countries receiving them may not have adequate resources
to effectively track and monitor their whereabouts and activities.
Unfortunately, despite repeated inquiries of the administration, we,
as Members of Congress, still don't know much about the commitments our
government has or gets from these countries. We don't know what, if
any, penalties have been levied against countries that lose track of
our former detainees.
Transparency is long overdue. That is why I authored this language in
this year's National Defense Authorization budget that would require
complete written agreements for any transfers between countries to be
shared with the appropriate congressional oversight committees.
To those who may have concerns about my bill, I want to be clear what
this legislation does and does not do. First and foremost, this
legislation would not enact a permanent, lasting ban. What it does do
is halt transfers until either this year's NDAA is signed into law or
until President Obama leaves office on January 20, 2017.
Mr. Speaker, as recently as last week, we heard the President say
that he was ``not ready to concede'' that he cannot close GTMO before
leaving office. The week before, we heard a similar message from Vice
President Biden.
With President Obama's time in office winding down, accelerating
transfers to achieve a campaign promise puts Americans at risk.
I am grateful to stand here with the national security leaders in
this House on this bill, and to remind the American people that our
first priority is the safety and security of our fellow Americans.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that would block all
transfers out of Guantanamo for the remainder of the year or until the
end of the President's current term.
This bill would, for the first time ever, impose a complete ban on
all transfers out of Guantanamo. Not only would the bill block all
transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, even for
purposes of prosecution in Federal court, but it would also ban the
resettlement or repatriation of detainees cleared by the United States
for transfer to foreign countries.
The bill would be effective until the earlier of January 21, 2017, or
the effective date of the next National Defense Authorization Act.
To quote the ACLU: ``This bill violates the bedrock constitutional
prohibition on Congress passing any legislation that violates the
Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause.''
In effect, it finds all the inmates at Guantanamo guilty of something
unspecified, without trial, and sentences them to life without parole.
That is what this bill does, along with the other series of bills. But
by saying you can't transfer anybody anywhere, you are saying they must
remain there indefinitely whether they have been tried or not, whether
they have been found guilty or not, whether our own experts think they
are a threat to the United States or not. Even if we find that someone
is factually not guilty of any act of terrorism or anything else and we
have no right to hold them, we still cannot release them.
By what right do we claim such a power? Since when is it okay for
Members of Congress to put people in jail and keep them there who are
not guilty of anything?
How can an American legislative body pass a provision that says we
will hold someone in jail forever not only without trial, but even if
we have determined that he is innocent of everything?
That is the basic argument here. This bill, the idea that we will
keep people in jail forever without their having been found guilty of
anything, without their having been tried, it makes a mockery of the
American Constitution. It makes a mockery of all our pretenses to stand
for liberty.
It makes a mockery of habeas corpus. This would even say that if
someone were granted a writ of habeas corpus, he could not be released
even if a Court granted him a writ of habeas corpus. Plainly
unconstitutional, not to mention immoral.
I will say one other thing on a completely different level. This
expires either when we pass the next NDAA or when the next President
takes office. It says, in effect, this President is not really our
President, for all practical purposes, for every practical purpose. He
was elected by the American people 4 years ago, but we don't like him,
so we are going to say he can't do certain things that his successor
can do. We are going to put something in writing only for this
President.
Now, if this said this expires when the next NDAA is passed or it
expires a year from now or whenever, that would be one thing. But this
says the NDAA or when the next President takes office. In other words,
very much like the Senate is doing with Judge Garland. We don't trust
the President. Maybe we don't. That is a political decision, but it is
not a right decision.
We don't trust the President to act as President. We repudiate the
judgment the American people made in the last election. We say that,
for certain purposes, his term has expired and we will wait for the
next President.
That also is pernicious and against our constitutional values. On
every level, this bill is probably unconstitutional and certainly
immoral, and I oppose it.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank Chairman Randy Forbes.
Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected, one of the first persons to
greet me was my classmate of 2001, Chairman Randy Forbes. From the
beginning, I saw what a gentleman he was, what a dedicated Member of
Congress he has been. I so appreciate his leadership on behalf of
national defense, promoting peace through strength.
Additionally, he and his wife, Shirley, are stalwart Christians,
promoting religious freedom successfully around the world, making a
difference.
I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 5351, prohibiting
the transfer of Guantanamo detainees. Introduced by Congresswoman
Jackie Walorski, this further protects American families by halting the
transfer of any detainee to any location.
During the August recess, sadly, the administration released 15 more
dangerous detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners that are being
held there--and I have been to Guantanamo Bay twice, I know the
professionalism of the American military--these are the co-conspirators
of Osama Bin Laden, trained mass murderers. By holding them there, we
show our resolve and that we have not forgotten the mass murderous
attacks of September 11.
The President's reckless release of detainees puts American
servicemembers and families at risk. The deterrence of incarceration
has never been more important.
We, today, have a greater spread of terrorist safe havens than in the
history of the world. From Algeria in North Africa, through the Middle
East, through South Asia, all the way to Indonesia and the Philippines,
these safe havens of Islamic terrorists are going to receive persons to
come and be reinforcements.
In March, the Director of National Intelligence reported that at
least 116 detainees, nearly a third, released from Guantanamo have
returned to the battlefield. What we have further is Reuters reports
that more have returned to
[[Page H5508]]
the battlefield to threaten and kill American families.
I appreciate the leadership of Congresswoman Walorski of Indiana, and
I urge my colleagues to vote in support.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In the prime sponsor of this bill's remarks, there are a whole lot of
sort of half-truths and assumptions that got jammed together that don't
actually make sense and are not actually the facts that are before us
to paint a very dark picture that isn't what we are dealing with. Let
me just run through those.
We heard that 30 percent of the people have returned to the
battlefield or are suspected to have returned to the battlefield. That
30 percent figure relies, again, on the folks that were released before
the Obama administration when, again, quite frankly, people were picked
up in a very haphazard manner and released in a very haphazard manner.
Since 2009, since the Obama administration did the vetting process of
all of these people, the actual rate of people who have been deemed to
have returned to the battlefield, even with the two that were counted
this morning, is 5.6 percent. So when you hear 30 percent--oh my gosh,
30 percent of these people are returning to the battlefield; how can we
release them--that is not the number. Okay?
Now, you can argue about the 5.6 if you want, but let's at least get
the number right. Since the Obama administration did the proper vetting
process, the number is 5.6 percent to have been confirmed to have
returned to the battlefield, including the two that were added this
morning.
It is also worth noting that when we say the ones that are left are
the worst of the worst, there is truth in that. Obviously, Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed would fall right up at the top of that; and 41 of the
folks who are there do fall into that category of the worst of the
worst. None of those 41 have been cleared for transfer.
What we are talking about is the 20 who have been cleared for
transfer, and the President--those are the people that President Obama
has released and repatriated to other countries over the course of the
last 7 years, are people who have been cleared for transfer; with one
exception, which I am sure will come up at some point, and that was in
the prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl. And we can relitigate that
argument as well, but that has really got nothing to do with what is
going on here.
There, the President made a decision to transfer five people that had
not been cleared for transfer in exchange for our captured member of
the military. So except for that situation, all of these people who
have been released have been vetted and cleared.
Lastly, I just want to--well, not lastly, actually two more things.
The most disturbing thing that was said was that these people who have
been released are people who, at one time, were suspected of being
dangerous, and that is true. They wouldn't have been there if they
weren't suspected of being dangerous. But it turns out in these cases
we were wrong. And you can go back through the history of post-9/11,
you can find a number of instances when we were wrong.
I remember right after 9/11 there was a doctor in San Antonio who had
done a whole bunch of suspicious things, and everybody was absolutely
convinced that this guy was tied in with al Qaeda. He was held for an
extended period of time, and then people looked into it and they said:
Oops, sorry, we got the wrong guy. We are going to let you go.
That happens, and I don't blame law enforcement in the least bit for
that. It is a difficult job.
In this case, when you are talking about terrorists, you should err
on the side of caution. If you have probable cause, you should pick
somebody up and you should be sure.
But now what this side is saying, once you have been suspected, even
if it turns out that you were completely wrong in that suspicion:
Sorry, we are just going to lock you up for the rest of your life
without due process or a possibility of trial.
That is unbelievably unconstitutional and just flat wrong.
Yes, these people were suspected. They wouldn't be in Guantanamo if
they weren't. But what was determined was that, of those people who
were suspected, a number of them turned out we were wrong. And of the
ones that are left, there are 20 out of the 61 that are eligible for
transfer.
Now, again, finding the right country to send them to, it might not
happen. All right. So no one is talking about releasing the worst of
the worst. The President has made it clear those 41 are not
transferrable.
We are talking about the 20 that have been deemed to be
transferrable. Just because you were suspected at one point, I would
hate to think that we would have a country that says: If you are
suspected of a crime, sorry, we are going to lock you up and that is
it, even if evidence later shows that we were wrong.
That is not the way we should do things in law enforcement.
Lastly, we have heard that this is all about a campaign promise to
close Guantanamo. Again, this has nothing to do with closing
Guantanamo.
Now, the President and the Vice President are reluctant to give up on
what they think is the right policy, closing Guantanamo Bay. So until
they leave office, they are not just going to say: We are not going to
do it.
They think it is important. Again, I won't relitigate that argument,
but there are people who feel passionately that it is the right thing
to do. But that is not what we are talking about doing here.
We are talking about 20 people who have been deemed not to be a
threat to the United States that we are, nonetheless, incarcerating,
and the President is talking about transferring them.
We are not talking about transferring the 41, not talking about
closing Guantanamo. It is still in law that we can't close Guantanamo.
So it is not about a campaign promise. It is about upholding the values
in the Constitution of the United States of America that says that if
we have you incarcerated and it turns out that our evidence was wrong
and you are not guilty of what we thought you were guilty of or, in
this case, not a threat to us in the way that we thought you were, then
we should release you, not hold you.
We are not a dictatorship. We are not a country like Saddam Hussein
used to run, where he just locked people up because he wanted to. That
is not who we should be.
This bill takes away the ability of this President to transfer those
20 people who have been clearly deemed transferrable by the Defense
Department, the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department,
Intelligence Community experts.
They want to stop, as Mr. Nadler said, this President from being
President. Now, they never wanted him to be President in the first
place, and it is incredibly inconvenient that he got elected twice,
from their perspective. But he is the President and he should have the
authority to exercise the Office of the Presidency until January 20 of
next year, when he is done.
{time} 0945
This bill unfairly strips him of that right. Again, we are talking
about 20 people who have been deemed to be transferable. So let's get
the facts straight and then argue based on those facts. It is not 30
percent; it is 5.6. We are not talking about releasing the worst of the
worst. We are not talking about closing Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my friend and colleague.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank so much, first, my colleague
Jackie Walorski for introducing this very important piece of
legislation that I am proud to cosponsor, and secondly, Chairman
Forbes. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on national defense,
on faith, and so many other issues important to our country.
This bill is crucial. It prevents the Obama administration from
transferring any remaining detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention
facility in the last months of his Presidency. Now, this is important
because the administration seems determined to clear the facility. In
2016, 46 detainees have been transferred. Last month alone, 15
terrorists were released. More are expected as Vice President Biden has
[[Page H5509]]
stated that it is the President's intention to empty GTMO by the time
he leaves office.
This rush to close Guantanamo is dangerous, reckless, and
shortsighted. Already we have learned that 30 percent of those who have
been released have returned to the battlefield. American soldiers who
fought so hard to take the enemy off the battlefield now have to face
them again.
But this release is beyond dangerous; it is an injustice. Let me
share an example.
In 2011, shortly after taking office, I received the gut-wrenching
news that a young soldier from my district had lost his life in the war
on terror in Afghanistan. Christopher Stark was a combat engineer
serving one of the most dangerous missions of the war: clearing roads
of IEDs so his unit could pass by safely. Day after day he saved
others, but, ultimately, he wasn't able to save himself when an IED
exploded.
Christopher gave his life to save others. His country gained a hero;
his mother lost a son. She has become my friend and is a hero in her
own right as she bravely comes to terms with his sacrifice--relying on
her faith to give her daily strength while accepting the burden and
hallowed position of being a Gold Star mom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. HARTZLER. So you can imagine my dismay and consternation when I
learned that, in his rush to fulfill campaign promises to close GTMO,
the administration released a terrorist by the name of Obaidullah in
the last round of detainee transfers. Who was he? He was part of an al
Qaeda-associated improvised explosive device cell that targeted
coalition forces in Afghanistan. He was captured by U.S. security
forces during a raid in his compound, where they found 23 landmines as
well as a notebook containing electronic and detonator schematics
involving explosives and mines similar to the one that killed
Christopher.
Releasing Obaidullah was wrong. He was targeted for prosecution and
his status was changed. American soldiers like Christopher Stark lost
their lives due to his activities. We need to ensure our American
soldiers stay safe and also that justice is served.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to
make two quick points.
The Obama administration is not determined to clear the facility
before they leave office. They want to close the facility. But, again,
those 41 that have been deemed dangerous, it is the Obama
administration's position that they shouldn't be held in Guantanamo
Bay, that they should be held in secure prisons in the United States,
not to let them go.
I think that is one of the most misleading things about this argument
that is being made by the other side repeatedly that they simply want
to let them all go. It is not their goal to empty GTMO before January
20. It is their goal to still try to close the prison so that they can
be held here in the U.S.
Again, that is a separate argument, but I just want to make sure that
it is clear it is not the goal of the administration to simply empty
out the prison and send all 61 wherever. We are talking about 20 that
have been deemed eligible for transfer.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), my friend and colleague.
Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my HASC colleague
and friend, Jackie Walorski, for all of her efforts to prevent the
transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and introducing H.R.
5351, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
I stand here today as the Representative of the Army's 10th Mountain
Division, resilient warriors who have been an integral force in the war
on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11.
As we all know, GTMO is comprised of some of the world's most heinous
terrorists, and we have lost many servicemembers' lives in their
pursuit. As the 10th Mountain Division and others continue to serve in
harm's way, it is our duty to provide oversight and ensure the
administration is held accountable before any American dies at the
hands of a released detainee.
Releasing these terrorists and closing GTMO is a true national
security concern at home; therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand with
our brave men and women in uniform and show them that their sacrifices
have not gone to waste and vote today in support of H.R. 5351.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds
before yielding to Mr. Nadler.
I want to make clear; I represented Joint Base Lewis-McChord for 16
years, until 2012, and wrote hundreds of sympathy cards to family
members who lost loved ones from that base in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
I will take the backseat to no one in terms of respecting what they
did, how they fought, and what they sacrificed, making sure that we do
everything we can to protect them and give them the tools they need to
protect our country and protect themselves. I thank the Republicans for
working in a bipartisan manner on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the people of
Guantanamo are the worst of the worst, that they are very dangerous,
and that their release would pose a threat to the United States. Some
are, it is true. Some are probably the worst of the worst, but some
aren't. Some are people who were picked up by mistake. Some are people
who were sold for a bounty.
If you go into a wild place like Afghanistan and you let the word out
that we will pay $5,000 for a terrorist and the McCoys are fighting the
Hatfields, the McCoys will turn in a Hatfield and say that he is a
terrorist. Some of that happened.
It is our job not to keep everybody in jail for life but to figure
out who is who: who is the worst of the worst; who is innocent; who is
there because of a mistake.
Release those who are innocent; release those who do not pose a
threat; and release those who didn't do anything. Simply getting up and
repeating time after time on this floor that the people there are the
worst of the worst doesn't make it true.
What kind of a system of justice or anything else is it where you
say: We are going to hold forever, with no trial, people who we have
already determined to pose no threat to the United States, who we have
already determined have done nothing wrong, but we are going to hold
them in jail forever because some of them are bad people--no trial, no
proceeding, hold them in jail forever?
By what right would we do that? How do we appear to all the countries
and to all the people that we are trying to appeal to, saying our way
is the rule of law, go with our way, don't go with the Taliban, we are
fair to people, they are not, and then we have people in jail forever
with no hope of release, with no trial, no proceeding, nothing? That is
what this bill is.
This bill is un-American in the extreme. It is counterproductive
because it gives the Taliban and everybody else the propaganda against
us that we are a bunch of hypocrites, which we are if we pass bills
like this, and we shouldn't pass it.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my friend and colleague.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Forbes for
his leadership on this issue and for his distinguished career here in
Congress. The gentleman certainly will be missed.
Mr. Speaker, some issues just boil down to common sense. Despite the
rhetoric of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is no
evidence of Good Samaritan sweet peas being kept at Guantanamo Bay.
Common sense would tell you that it is a very bad idea to bring the
world's worst criminals to America's shore. It is an equally bad idea
to release them. That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 5351, a
bill that would stop the transfer of individuals detained at the United
States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Last Sunday, our Nation recognized the 15th anniversary of the worst
attack on U.S. soil, an attack where we
[[Page H5510]]
lost nearly 3,000 American lives. That tragic event marked the
beginning of a war against terrorists who espouse radical Islam. Since
then, Guantanamo Bay has been instrumental in detaining enemy
combatants engaged in that war.
Today, there are 61 suspected terrorists remaining at GTMO. They are
largely regarded as the worst of the worst. They are the folks that no
other country would take--too dangerous to transfer, the most dangerous
criminals in the world. But the President wants to release these
terrorists or, worse yet, bring them to American soil, putting
Americans at risk. That is a really bad idea, and we can't, in good
conscience, let that happen. That is why we have had bipartisan support
for keeping GTMO open in the past. There are simply not enough
standards in place to make these transfers without endangering American
lives.
I am proud of the leadership of my colleague, Jackie Walorski, on
this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to stop any reckless
transfers of terrorists to American soil. Not one American life is
worth the risk.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to
say, regrettably, the previous gentleman is simply wrong. He said that
America would not arrest as a terrorist someone who turned out not to
be a terrorist. The facts are simply clear that that is just not the
case. It is not that we are doing anything malicious. It is a
complicated and difficult job. As Mr. Nadler pointed out, there is a
lot to sort out.
It is not even in dispute that we have arrested and incarcerated
people because we thought they were terrorists and found out that we
were wrong. That is not debated. A number of them have been released.
So to say that, well, if we arrested them and put them in there, they
must be bad and they can't be sent out is precisely what is wrong with
the thinking behind this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am
prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the most interesting thing about this debate is that, as
we have moved on from speaker to speaker, the proponents of this
legislation keep saying the same things over and over again that simply
are not true. Again, I just want to close by saying I wish we could
debate this on the actual facts, on what is in front of us.
There certainly is an argument to be made that we should err on the
side of just locking them up no matter what. I think that is the wrong
argument. I think Mr. Nadler has very clearly articulated why, as a
country, we shouldn't do that, we shouldn't pick people up and say, if
there is any possibility we might be wrong, we are just going to take
away your freedom and lock you up without due process. It is a
violation of the fundamental principles of our country. We could at
least have that debate.
But we keep hearing a number of things that simply are not correct.
Number one, this is just the President trying to fulfill a campaign
promise to close down Guantanamo Bay and get everybody out of there
before he leaves office. That is completely wrong. There are 41 people
at Guantanamo Bay who this administration has said under no
circumstances are they transferable. Those are the worst of the worst,
and they are not talking about transferring them. What we are talking
about are the 20 people who have been deemed transferable.
Then we have the argument, well, gosh, they wouldn't be in there if
they hadn't done something wrong. As we all know, law enforcement
occasionally makes mistakes. So that is not correct either. These 20
people have been examined and deemed to be transferable, and we should
not hold them because the 41 other people who happen to be there are
really bad people. That is not, again, according to the way that we
should do justice in our country.
So this is not about closing Guantanamo. We have had that debate
numerous times, and I have lost that debate on the House floor. I
understand that. This is about the Obama administration doing what the
Bush administration should have done in the first place, which was to
be a lot more careful about whom you put in there; and then once they
are in there, examine it, make sure you actually have sufficient
evidence and these are people you need to hold.
That is what the Obama administration did in 2009 with the 242
inmates who were being detained at Guantanamo. They determined that
some of them were there incorrectly and were transferable. That is what
we are talking about.
{time} 1000
This bill would stop that. This bill would say basically that
President Obama is not actually President in this area for the rest of
his term. That is wrong. He got elected and he ought to be able to make
those decisions.
I will also say in this area, he has proven to be vastly more careful
than his predecessor. Again, the recidivism rate of those released in
2009 is 5.6 percent. Prior to that, that number was closer to 30. So a
process was put in place that actually did work, and we ought to
respect that process and not restrict the President's ability to
basically do justice.
Finally, I just want to say, as has been noted a couple of times, Mr.
Forbes will be leaving our committee. I have enjoyed serving with him
during my time. He is--as Stephen Colbert would say--a worthy opponent,
and I enjoy that. We have had a lot of great debates on the committee.
I am very, very sorry to see him go. I thank him also for his service.
We have worked in a very bipartisan fashion on a number of issues and
upheld, I think very, very well, the bipartisan tradition of the House
Armed Services Committee. So I have enjoyed serving with him. I
appreciate that service. I wish him the best of luck in the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say I have enormous respect for
the ranking member, and he has done an admirable job today, as he
always does, of defending the President and the President's actions in
Guantanamo Bay.
Unfortunately, the President's actions in Guantanamo Bay have not
been quite as admirable. We have heard throughout the discussion today
several catchphrases. We have heard that we wanted to discuss what was
actually true. We wanted to discuss what the facts actually were. We
talked about this incredible vetting process this administration had.
We talked about the need to have a process and to have that process
work before they took action. We have heard the phrase, We don't want
to turn the American justice system on its ears. And we have also heard
that, We don't want to hold up the process for a few months because
that could be problematic.
Mr. Speaker, let me try to take us back a little bit and put some
facts around this whole debate as to why we got here in the first
place. The reality of this situation is that this administration,
before they ever took office, before the President ever raised his hand
and took the oath, before any cabinet members were appointed, or before
anybody had been placed in his administration, this President and this
Vice President made a commitment to close Guantanamo Bay before they
ever went down there and actually investigated and looked at what was
there.
The other situation is that when they made that promise, they had
made no vetting process. They had no process in place.
The other fact, Mr. Speaker, is that when this President raised that
hand and took that oath, the former administration that my good friend,
the ranking member, has talked about how terrible they were, they had a
prosecutor and a team of prosecutors who were prosecuting some of the
worst terrorists this country had ever seen. Most Americans don't know
the names of the people in Guantanamo Bay, but they know we had co-
conspirators in 9/11 who were sitting down there, and
[[Page H5511]]
that former administration had a prosecutorial team who had gone
through months after months after months with a stack of motions this
high, and that prosecutor said to anyone who would go down there,
including me and the former chairman of the committee, Ike Skelton,
that he would have had guilty verdicts or guilty pleas by those co-
conspirators within 6 months.
When this administration came in with their great vetting and their
great process without talking to that prosecutor, without looking at
that at all, he disbanded that entire prosecution, terminated that
prosecutor, terminated that entire team. And, to this day, no one on
that side of the aisle can even tell us when they are going to have
convictions on those conspirators of the worst terrorists this country
has ever seen.
When I hear the President and the Vice President stand up and say, We
haven't given up on the promise to close Guantanamo Bay, I listen and I
listen and I listen to deafness for the President or the Vice President
to say, We haven't given up on getting convictions of the worst
terrorists in the United States.
So when I look at Guantanamo Bay and I hear, We are not really going
to close it, forget what the President is saying, forget what the Vice
President is saying, they don't really mean they want to close
Guantanamo Bay. All they want to do is bring those terrorists to the
United States.
We have stood on this floor and fought that for 8 years, and here is
the reason. Because let me ask which of you want those terrorists
brought to your community with every single act of terrorism we are
seeing now and the repercussions of that? Because the moment you put
them in your community in any jail or any prison, it is not a matter of
whether we can hold them there, but you have just put a target on every
school, every business, every mall in that community. When you talk
about justice and you talk about fairness, we just believe that is
wrong.
So when you talk about just giving a little more time to the
President for a few months, doesn't it make a little bit of sense that
if this administration was given the time to come in and stop the
prosecution of the worst terrorists the United States has ever seen,
that maybe, just maybe we ought to have a temporary hold and let the
next President, whoever that President might be, have a few months to
determine before we release these terrorists whether or not they want
to prosecute them and they really want to bring them to a conviction
instead of just talking about it for 8 years?
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, with this. Years ago, when I stood on this
floor on one of the first motions we had, it was a motion to recommit
for the defense authorization bill to stop this administration from
bringing these detainees to the United States. My friend and chairman
on the other side of the aisle, Ike Skelton, stood on the floor right
where my good friend, Mr. Smith, is sitting today, and Mr. Skelton said
this: When it comes to terrorism, there shouldn't be any light between
the Republicans and the Democrats. And he supported that motion not to
bring those terrorists to the United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, today, after all of the rhetoric, it is a pretty
simple deal, prosecute them if you want to prosecute them, but don't
fulfill some campaign promise of shutting down Guantanamo Bay and the
impact that could have on these terrorists.
And I would say, as my good friend, Ike Skelton, said today, there
shouldn't be any light between Republicans and Democrats when it comes
to terrorists, but there certainly shouldn't be any light in with any
Member of this Congress when it comes to defending and protecting the
United States from these terrorists who have one goal in mind, and that
is to kill Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 174, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 520]
YEAS--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--174
Adams
Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
[[Page H5512]]
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Brown (FL)
Costa
DesJarlais
Ellmers (NC)
Fincher
Hardy
Johnson, Sam
Labrador
Palazzo
Pitts
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Young (AK)
{time} 1035
Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520 I was present on the
House Floor and used my voting card to register a ``yes'' vote on H.R.
5351, To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Due to a malfunction in the
voting device, my ``yes'' vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
____________________