[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20069-20080]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6166, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 
                                  2006

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1042 and ask for its immediate 
consideration
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1042

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6166) to amend title 
     10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military 
     commission for violations of the law of war, and for other 
     purposes. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate, with 80 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on armed services 
     and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and 92) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert tabular and extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee 
met and reported a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6166, the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006. The rule provides 2 hours of debate, 
with 80 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points 
of order against consideration of the bill.
  Additionally, it provides that the amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as 
adopted, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the 
underlying bicameral compromise legislation. This critical legislation 
ensures that we align the procedural protections for captured 
terrorists with our Constitution. In doing so, we are extending 
unprecedented legal and procedural protections to enemies who provide 
no protections to their captives and victims, and who have neither 
signed nor operate by the Geneva Convention.
  To further ensure American Security and to ensure that terrorist 
detainees are not released to once again wreak havoc, it is necessary 
to move this legislation and develop a clear set of standards for 
military commissions.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, time is of the essence in moving 
forward with this legislation. These commissions will provide an 
important tool for our servicemen and women in obtaining operationally 
sensitive information from terrorists captured on the battlefield. 
However, the reform of the tribunal system to ensure certain procedural 
rights for these terrorists will also provide an impetus and an 
opportunity for those currently in our detainee system to cooperate 
more fully.
  Mr. Speaker, as I know you are aware, the underlying legislation was 
developed after intense negotiations between both the legislative and 
executive branches of government. Furthermore, its development has been 
supported by senior Members of both parties and has largely received 
bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Indeed, I predict 
once the legislation is actually presented, it will be passed by a 
strong bipartisan majority in this House.
  Indeed, when an earlier, stronger and more restrictive version of 
this same bill moved through the House Armed Services Committee, it 
passed by a vote of 52-8, with one member voting present. This strong 
bipartisan majority on the primary committee of expertise and 
jurisdiction should be taken as a sign of its importance and the 
support for moving forward with the prosecution of those terrorists 
who, if set free, would resume killing American civilians and our 
servicemen and women as a matter of course and a tactic of terror.
  Mr. Speaker, today we may well hear several concerns about the way in 
which the bill was brought forward to the floor. As we all know, when 
you can't win a debate on the merits of a piece of legislation, process 
attacks are the best way of slowing down and obstructing progress of 
that legislation. But the fact remains that within the last 2 weeks, 
both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary 
Committee passed legislation even stronger than the legislation we are 
voting on today. Since then, bicameral negotiations have resulted in 
even more modifications to the underlying legislation ensuring even 
more rights for the terrorists accused of war crimes. But, Mr. Speaker, 
time is of the essence. We must move this legislation to the 
President's desk. It does much to enhance America's security and to 
create an equitable system for prosecuting terrorists captured on the 
battlefield.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to speak to what 
protections the underlying legislation provides to those who would like 
to kill Americans. It provides: The right to counsel, provided by the 
government at trial throughout the appellate process; an impartial 
military judge; a presumption of innocence; a standard of proof beyond 
a reasonable doubt; the right to be informed of the charges against the 
accused as soon as practicable; the right to service of charges 
sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare a defense; the right to 
reasonable continuances; the right to peremptory challenge against 
members of the commission and challenges for cause against members of 
the commission and the military judge; witnesses must testify under 
oath; judges, counsel, and members of the military commission must take 
an oath; a right to enter a plea of not guilty; the right to obtain 
witnesses and other evidence; the right to exculpatory evidence as soon 
as practicable; the right to be present in court with the exceptions of 
certain classified evidence involving national security, preservation 
of safety or preventing disruption of proceedings; the right to a 
public trial except for national security issues or physical safety 
issues; the right to have any findings or sentences announced as soon 
as determined; the right against compulsory self-incrimination; the 
right against double jeopardy; the defense of a lack of mental 
responsibility; prohibitions against unlawful command influence toward 
members of the commission, counsel, or military judges; it requires a 
two-thirds vote of members for conviction, three-fourths vote required 
for sentences of life or over 10 years, and unanimous verdict required 
for the death penalty; it requires a verbatim authenticated record of 
the trial; cruel or unusual punishments are prohibited; treatment and 
discipline during the confinement the same as afforded to prisoners in 
U.S. domestic

[[Page 20070]]

courts; the right to review the full factual record by the convening 
authority; and the right to at least two appeals, including a Federal 
article 3 appellate appeal.
  Mr. Speaker, with that said, all these protections that we are 
willing to provide terrorists are the very same protections that they 
ignore when beating, mutilating, and killing our civilians and 
servicemen. These terrorists have no respect for the rule of law. They 
are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They do not fight in 
uniforms, and they kill innocent civilians of all faiths and all 
nationalities routinely, yet we are willing to grant to them 
substantive legal protections that I honestly believe go beyond the 
actual requirements of the Geneva Convention.
  With that said, I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the critically important legislation before us today is 
being presented as a bipartisan compromise, but nothing could be 
further from the truth. It was authored by the administration and by 
the Republican leaders of this Congress.
  As Chairman Hunter testified in the Rules Committee yesterday, no 
Democrats were involved in any way in the negotiations that were 
conducted over the weekend to produce this bill, nor did the Rules 
Committee make in order any of the 15 amendments that Democrats offered 
to address the sections of the bill that most offend our democratic 
values and violate our most fundamental traditions.
  The closed rule governing this bill means this Republican Congress is 
turning its back on a real debate here today. It is a reality made all 
the more egregious by the historic importance of this moment. We are at 
a crossroads today, and I fear we will not be judged kindly by future 
Americans for what my Republican friends want to do to us today.

                              {time}  1130

  The bill sends a clear message to both our friends and our enemies 
about what kind of people we are. It shows them whether or not we are 
really willing to practice what we preach about freedom and democracy 
and human dignity.
  It is moments like this one when we reveal our true colors and even 
our true values. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, those watching today will conclude 
that when the going gets tough, America's leaders are willing to 
abandon our values, abandon them in favor of thuggish tactics that they 
hope might make them safer for a little while.
  In his second inaugural address, our President used noble words to 
describe America's role in the world and its duty as a beacon of hope 
for all nations. He said, ``From the day of our founding, we have 
proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and 
dignity, and matchless values.''
  That might be disputed by the generations of persons held in slavery 
and by the women of America who had no say in anything or standing 
anywhere, but, nonetheless, it sounds good. They are inspirational 
words.
  But here is the reality: For years, this administration has 
circumvented our Constitution in the name of security. Its officials 
have dismissed even the most important of our legal documents, such as 
the Geneva Convention, as being nothing more than ``quaint.'' It was 
described that way by the present Attorney General, the chief law 
officer, I might add.
  This administration and Republican Congress have allowed detainees to 
sit in prison for years without charging them with any crime. They are 
willing to deprive people of even the most basic due process rights 
that our country has always afforded those held by the government. They 
are willing to convict people of crimes without giving them any 
opportunity to review the evidence the government is using against 
them. They are willing to try to convict people based on unreliable 
evidence acquired through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that 
the rest of the world recognizes as torture.
  They are willing to allow government officials to degrade and torment 
other human beings in ways that civilized nations outlawed 60 years 
ago. They are even willing to take any new legislation that we pass 
today and make it retroactive to protect people who have already 
committed torture, so that past abuses will be forgotten instead of 
being sincerely addressed.
  What this Congress is showing the world today is that they are 
willing to trade our national birthright for a false and temporary 
sense of security.
  Let me emphasize that, because it is indeed a false sense of 
security, Mr. Speaker. After 5 years of secret detentions, torture, 
warrantless surveillance, hyped up stories about weapons of mass 
destruction, are we any safer today from the threat of terrorism? The 
answer is no, we are not. In fact, as we learned earlier this week, our 
country's intelligence agencies informed the President a few months ago 
that we are actually less safe than we were in 2001.
  Mistreating our prisoners and depriving them of the basic due process 
rights of our legal system is not making us any safer. All it is doing 
is slowly wearing away at the fabric of our democratic society, 
undermining the essential nature that made us different from other 
countries. When we degrade and mistreat our prisoners, we degrade 
ourselves and the democratic values we have inherited from generations 
of brave and decent Americans.
  We are ceding the moral high ground those who founded this country, 
and the men and women who served it ever since, won with their blood, 
sweat and tears.
  What is more, legislation like this puts our soldiers at risk. During 
the course of the national debate on this issue, a number of prominent 
admirals, generals and other military leaders have spoken out against 
this bill. They have told us time and time again that ignoring our 
American values puts our U.S. military personnel deployed overseas in 
danger. That falls on deaf ears here. They have said that respect for 
the rules of military engagement and prisoner treatment are more than 
just important parts of our American heritage. They also protect 
Americans who are captured and imprisoned by foreign powers.
  Mr. Speaker, how is endangering our troops making us any safer? How 
is undermining our moral standard helping us win allies in the war of 
ideas that we face?
  The answer is simple. It is not. At this very moment, there are 
hundreds, if not thousands of people held in facilities whose fate will 
depend on this legislation. I want to take a moment to talk about one 
of them.
  Bilal Hussein is an Iraqi who worked as a photographer for the 
Associated Press. He is also a Pulitzer Prize winner. He has been held 
in Iraq by American forces for 5 months. He was accused of aiding and 
abetting the insurgency, but he has yet to be charged with any crime. 
He has been given no access to a lawyer or to a court and has not been 
able to see any evidence against him. The Associated Press has stood by 
him and repeatedly defended his innocence. We want to make sure he is 
alive. We will be writing the Secretary of Defense today to give us 
some information on his case.
  But under this bill, Mr. Speaker, Bilal Hussein could be declared to 
be an enemy combatant, sent to an American detention facility and kept 
there indefinitely. No charges would ever have to be brought against 
him. His permanent detention would never have to be defended in a court 
of law.
  Imagine if another nation held an American citizen without charging 
him of a crime. Imagine if it refused to even let him see the evidence 
against him. What would we say about such a country?
  So, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what are we 
supposed to say about our country today? Again, in his inaugural 
address of 2 years ago, the President had this say about the soul of 
America: ``When the Declaration of Independence was first read in

[[Page 20071]]

public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said 
it rang as if it meant something. In our time, it means something 
still.''
  This bill gives the lie to that speech and it gives the lie to what 
should be our Nation's greatest asset, our greatest weapon in the fight 
against terrorism and oppression, and that is our values.
  I ask everyone in the House to reject this bill. I ask everyone here 
to chart a new course for America. If we reject torture, if we stand up 
for a legal system and fundamental rights that are the basis for 
liberty and the only real source of security that we have, then we will 
have come a long way in our battle against the threats our Nation faces 
in the world today.
  My friends and colleagues, please don't turn your back on the past. 
It is in its lessons and principles that we will find the key to a 
safer and more just future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just quickly want to note, I am 
very proud of my country. I am proud that we extend protections to our 
adversaries that they do not extend to us. I am proud that in the few 
cases where there are transgressions, those are vigorously prosecuted 
and exposed by this country. So I have great pride in the United States 
of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from 
Oklahoma and associating myself with his remarks.
  This is a very, very important debate that we are having. I believe 
that yesterday's news conference that President Bush and the very brave 
and courageous President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, held yesterday 
at the White House, underscores how important that debate that we are 
going to be facing today is.
  We were reminded in the remarks that President Karzai offered in 
response to a question posed to him about how we are handling this 
issue with the following statement. I am going to read this from the 
transcript of the news conference, Mr. Speaker.
  President Karzai said: ``These extremist forces were killing people 
in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, 
killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging 
on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.''
  Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, ``They came to America on September 
11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts 
of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how 
they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people 
jumping off the 80th floor or the 70th floor when the planes hit them? 
Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that 
high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them? 
How do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait 
for them to come and kill us again? That is why we need more action 
around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated, 
extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.''
  Mr. Speaker, those were the words of President Hamid Karzai standing 
in the White House yesterday. He said we have absolute responsibility 
to make sure that we go after them and we must bring them to justice.
  Now we are faced with a challenging situation here. We have a court 
decision with which we have to contend. When the Hamdan decision was 
handed down, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, did they 
offer their plan for interrogation or tribunals? Absolutely not. 
Nothing was offered whatsoever.
  When we as Republicans were in the midst of an open and honest debate 
over the past several days, a bicameral debate, as we were reminded by 
Mr. Cole, about detainee treatment, did the Democrats offer their own 
plan? Did they come forward with a plan for interrogation and 
tribunals? No, they didn't.
  When we met just last night at the Rules Committee, did the Democrats 
offer their own plan for interrogation and tribunals? Absolutely not.
  And now, when faced with a critical vote for the safety of the 
American people, the Democrats are picking at procedure. They talk 
about closed rules, sunset provisions. They ask what is the urgency? 
Anything to distract from the fact that there is nothing behind their 
curtain.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last hour, we have listened to our Democratic 
colleagues stand here and talk about the fact that we need to do 
everything that we possibly can to have an up-or-down vote on a wide 
range of issues. An up-or-down vote. Well, that is exactly what we are 
going to do right here.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I hasten to correct you. The Democrats did have a 
proposal in the Armed Services Committee, as you well know. Please give 
us credit for offering that.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I am going to get to that. I am going 
to get to that right now. Let me just first say that the urgency of 
this measure really needs no explanation. We have the alleged 
mastermind of 9/11 in our custody waiting to be brought to justice, and 
Members on the other side of the aisle ask, what is the rush? We have 
intelligence operatives hesitant to interrogate high value targets 
because their parameters are unclear, and Members on the other side of 
the aisle ask, what is the rush?
  We need every single tool. As President Karzai underscored in his 
statement, we need every single tool to stay ahead of the people who 
want to kill us, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say, 
what is the rush?
  Let me point out that during the Judiciary Committee markup, the 
Democrats offered no substitute at all. In response to my friend from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), it is true that my friends, including Mr. 
Skelton, in the Armed Services Committee, offered a substitute. What 
was that substitute? It was the McCain language. That was the 
Democratic alternative that was offered, the package submitted by our 
colleague, Senator McCain.
  The problem is that the bill before us represents an agreement 
between us, the administration and the very same Senators who 
propounded what was offered as the Democratic substitute in the Armed 
Services Committee.
  We have heard a lot about Mr. Skelton's amendment. As I understand 
it, this amendment would be somewhat redundant. The bill calls for 
expedited judicial review of H.R. 6166. We are here working on this 
legislation because the courts told us to do exactly what we are doing. 
The judicial branch directed Congress to establish procedures for 
military commissions. We have done that with this bill. Now the 
minority party wants to hand this issue back to the courts.
  The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, represents a very delicate 
compromise that allows us to continue to vigorously prosecute the war 
on terror while at the same time upholding our international and moral 
obligations to humane treatment of prisoners.
  I also want to make very clear that under this rule, the minority 
will still have an opportunity to offer a substitute or any other 
germane amendment by way of the motion to recommit. They will have an 
hour of debate time during the 2 hours that we have granted in this 
rule to offer an explanation of what their approach is.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that at the end of the day, we will see a 
strong bipartisan vote. Democrats have already spoken in support of 
this compromise that we are bringing forward today, and I believe that 
when it comes to the rollcall, we will have Republicans and Democrats 
voting to help us address the very, very pressing issue as was put 
forth so eloquently by Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Chair of the Rules

[[Page 20072]]

Committee that Democrats brought 15 amendments up last night, including 
amendments by the ranking members of Armed Services and Intelligence, 
that were not allowed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say that, 
again, as I mentioned, this is a very delicate compromise that we have 
been able to fashion and put together here, which enjoys bipartisan 
support. And while there were a wide range of amendments that were 
submitted, there was no firm alternative provided to our package that 
was a solution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reclaim my time.
  You negotiated with yourselves. We were completely shut out.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The able Chair, who is so articulate and 
capable, also is the master of immediate revisionist history. As he 
cites the whole set of events that have brought us here, he ignores the 
fact that over the weekend all of the negotiations were with the 
administration and with the Republican majority.
  Go to the record from yesterday's Rules hearing, and you will find 
that Duncan Hunter, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, said no 
Democrat was involved in those negotiations.
  So how disingenuous can you be?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? That is exactly what I said in 
my remarks.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. How disingenuous can you be by suggesting, 
among other things, that we have offered no plan when we can't even get 
to the table to offer a plan? We were shut out.
  And you, Mr. Chairman, have been the master of closed rules. No 
lesser person than you when I came to this body argued vehemently 
against closed rules.
  We are about the business here of undertaking serious business 
without the will of the House being hampered.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't have sufficient time. 
If your body will give us time, then I will be happy to yield to you.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say that 
I believe that if you look at the remarks that I made, I talked about 
those negotiators. I never said that there were Democrats involved in 
those actual negotiations.
  What I was saying is that we have a delicate compromise that was 
fashioned here that enjoys the support of many Democrats who have come 
forward and spoken in support of what it is that we are trying to do to 
make sure that we can successfully win this war on terror.
  And I believe that we made it very clear in the record here, and I 
think that there was no substantive alternative that did come forward 
from the Members of the minority at all.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No one really disputes whether or not this 
legislation is needed. In fact, all of us are acutely aware that it is 
imperative that we establish the legal parameters needed to properly 
apprehend and prosecute villains who act against this country. Those 
whom we deem a threat to our country should be given at least an 
opportunity to be put on trial properly, and if found guilty of their 
crimes, should be promptly put in prison or executed.
  But our responsibility, that we are not discharging fairly, is to 
make law that is constitutional and consistent with our international 
obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support today's legislation in its 
current form. We cannot overturn hundreds of years of judicial 
precedent specifically referring to habeas corpus for the sake of 
political expediency.
  Our judicial system has guaranteed the right to be heard in court, 
the right to know the evidence presented against you--when Mr. Cole was 
giving his litany of the rights that are being offered these terrible 
people, he left out that particular aspect--and an opportunity to 
contest your charge in a meaningful way. The government should not deny 
the minimum legal process to certain individuals now and risk the loss 
of freedom for all people in the future.
  Additionally, as the Supreme Court has ruled--and I predicted before, 
you are going to get a chance to rule on the constitutionality of this 
measure, and it should have been expedited pursuant to the plan offered 
by Mr. Skelton that was ignored in the Rules Committee--the United 
States is required under the Supreme Court to uphold the standards 
codified in the Geneva Convention.
  The current treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is questionable. 
Someone argued just a moment ago, what was the rush? We have this 
person who committed 9/11. And that is true. But everybody in the 
Intelligence Community has said all 14 of the prisoners that were 
transferred to Guantanamo, their intelligence has been exhausted and 
their value for intelligence has been exhausted.
  We also run the risk of approving prior transgressions. I shan't 
spend much time on that.
  This war on terror has reached global proportions and the world is 
watching our conduct closely. In the words of the distinguished late 
Senator William Fulbright, ``If America has a service to perform in the 
world, and I believe she has, it is in large part the service of her 
own example.''
  I close, Mr. Speaker: Those who would give up essential liberty to 
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
Ask Ben Franklin. That is what he said.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. We are 
at war with terrorists who hide in the shadows and prey on the innocent 
because they want to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, because 
they hate our freedom. And there should be no doubt that terrorists who 
perpetrate these acts are the enemy, and we need to treat them like the 
enemy, and that is why we are here today.
  This legislation will give this administration and future 
administrations the authority to try these terrorists. It also expands 
the definition of terrorists to those who would provide arms or 
financing to those who would seek to murder our citizens. It would 
allow confessions secured through tough interrogations to be used in 
court, confessions that have stopped many terrorist plots, plots to 
kill Americans.
  And it is astonishing to hear some in this House speaking out against 
these provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, if you contract for murder, you are a murderer, you are 
guilty of murder. And we need to give our professional interrogators 
clear direction and clear law, because right now, if you can believe 
it, they are actually faced with the prospect of buying liability 
insurance so they don't get sued as war criminals in a Federal court. 
This is ridiculous.
  One of the reasons that we are the strongest fighting force the world 
has ever seen is that we are an all-volunteer military. And I would ask 
you, are you going to volunteer to serve in a military that may 
inadvertently make you a lawbreaker just because you are doing your job 
of protecting America? Are we going to be asking our marines, who are 
breaking down doors in Fallujah, whether or not they should be reading 
Miranda rights to insurgents?
  I believe the American people are demanding that we stand strong 
against the terrorists and are demanding that we keep the information 
we need to keep our Nation safe.
  Mr. Speaker, the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal 
Government is to provide for the national defense, that is in the 
preamble of our Constitution. And national defense should always be 
above politics. Yet, the Democratic minority leader of this

[[Page 20073]]

House has said that national security should not be an issue in the 
upcoming election. Think about that.
  She has said that, that national security should not be an issue in 
the upcoming elections. And I would think that our brave men and women 
in the military would beg to differ with that.
  It is my hope that we can stand together in a bipartisan fashion to 
do what is right for America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the 
underlying bill. This is a debate about whether we are willing to 
preserve the fundamental protections our Nation has fought for 
centuries to maintain.
  As written, the underlying bill rejects these essential protections 
in favor of vague assurances and provisions open to interpretation. The 
potential erosion of our legal safeguards is a serious matter. That is 
why several members of our armed services raised these concerns when 
they testified to Congress several weeks ago.
  Mr. Speaker, certain rights are considered so fundamental to our 
Nation and to our Constitution that they cannot be sacrificed. The 
right of every American to have his or her day in court is one such 
right.
  But a number of law experts, including Martin Lederman, who worked at 
the Department of Justice for both President Clinton and President 
Bush, believe that this legislation would put that right in jeopardy. 
As written, this legislation could be used by the President as evidence 
of congressional agreement of a number of his legal assertions. That 
includes his assertion that holding an American citizen indefinitely 
without access to a lawyer is legal.
  From my family's personal experience, I know something about what can 
happen to the rights of Americans when the executive branch overreaches 
in a time of war.
  Restricting the legal rights of our citizens is something which, if 
done at all, must be done carefully and with a proper balancing of 
concerns. I know that Members of both Chambers tried to meet that 
standard with the administration on this legislation, but this proposal 
fails to achieve that balance. For that reason alone, we should reject 
this bill.
  I am also concerned because the history of this legislation fits a 
pattern we have seen before, one in which officials assert expanded 
powers while ignoring their career professionals in the process.
  A few weeks ago, Congress heard from a long line of generals and 
judge advocates general. Their collective testimony outlined a swift, 
tough approach to these tribunals that protected our troops, and it did 
so while preserving our moral authority in the world. This bill 
disregards their testimony and their expertise.
  They argued forcefully for detainees to see the evidence presented 
against them, with some adjustment for classified evidence. They stated 
that evidence obtained through torture should not be permitted, not 
only because it is morally offensive but also because it is inherently 
untrustworthy. They clearly reiterated their position that judicial 
review must be preserved.
  And, above all, they argued strenuously that any legislation must 
affirm the United States' commitment to the Geneva Conventions. They 
believe this because they know, better than anyone, that these 
safeguards protect our troops fighting on battlefields around the 
globe.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not listen to these experts in military 
law. Instead, the bill made in order under this closed rule would 
permit evidence obtained through torture in some cases.
  The legislation does include a list of certain grave breaches of the 
law. Beyond those, however, it gives the President the authority to 
determine what is and what isn't torture as long as he publishes it in 
the Federal Register first.
  These provisions undermine our Nation's moral authority, and, once 
given away, it will be that much harder to earn back.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is vague when it should 
be specific; it is casual with regards to important legal protections 
when it should be vigilant; and it is a fundamentally flawed approach 
to prosecuting terrorists.
  I urge all Members to reject this rule and to vote against the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support 
of the rule. Listening to the debate, it is very interesting. The 
gentlewoman from New York's description of our treatment of captured 
alleged terrorists was astonishing. As a matter of fact, after 
listening to her litany of complaints, President Chavez's comments at 
the United Nations appear mild.
  We have not violated the rights of individuals. This bill creates a 
fair and orderly process to detain and prosecute al Qaeda members and 
others captured during the war on terror. We extend more rights to 
these individuals than our POWs would ever expect under the Geneva 
Accords.
  And the suggestion raised by another Member on the other side, that 
somehow we are violating hundreds of years of precedent, is absolutely 
wrong. We are not talking about the great writ that is found in the 
Constitution, the great writ of habeas corpus. We are talking about a 
statutory writ, which the Supreme Court has said time and time again 
Congress has the right to create, Congress has the right to constrict, 
Congress has the right to eliminate.
  We do not just leave these people devoid of an opportunity for 
appeal. Rather, we set up a mechanism where an appeal can go to a 
single court, the District Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia, so that we can avoid the violations of justice that take 
place by the abuse of habeas corpus by some already involved.
  Besides, we already made this decision in this Congress a year ago. 
What this does is say to the Supreme Court, we meant what we said when 
we passed the law a year ago which said this should apply to people 
already in Guantanamo.
  That was our intent. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed it not 
to be found in the language. This makes it clear that what we said a 
year ago we say again, only we say to the Supreme Court, ``This time we 
really mean it. Please follow it.''
  It is not a violation of any rights. It extends more rights to these 
people than they are allowed under any other regime of law in the 
world, and any nonsense spoken on this floor to suggest otherwise ought 
to be rejected in whole and in part. We ought to support this rule and 
support this bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a proven fact that people 
have been imprisoned for several years without any due process.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) who did not have an opportunity to have his amendment made in 
order.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, if you want to be tough on terrorists, pass 
a statute that will meet the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of our 
country. If you want to be tough on terrorists, let's not pass 
something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will 
reverse a conviction. Once a conviction occurs, you want it to stick.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of practicing law a good number of 
years as a small town country lawyer, and part of that I was 
prosecuting attorney for Lafayette County, and I know what it is to 
obtain a hard-fought conviction of a criminal. And the specter that 
hangs over every prosecuting attorney on every case that is tried is a 
specter of that case being reversed on appeal.
  There are two manners by which a case may be reversed. One is, of 
course, something went wrong in the evidence or the instructions, 
something occurred during the trial, maybe even a

[[Page 20074]]

comment by one of the counsel. The other is a constitutional question 
regarding the statute on which the defendant was convicted. That's what 
we deal with here.
  I am concerned that portions of the statute that you are attempting 
to pass will give an appellate court the opportunity to reverse the 
case and send it back. That bothers me.
  I had an amendment that would give an expedited procedure. It was not 
allowed. Mrs. Tauscher of California had an amendment regarding common 
article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Ms. Harman had one regarding 
interrogation techniques. Ms. Sanchez had one regarding appeals 
process. And Mr. Meehan had one regarding habeas corpus, and they were 
all turned down.
  I have in my possession a letter from the chief counsel to the 
commissions, Colonel Dwight H. Sullivan. And in this letter he points 
out just what I am talking about. We should have an expedited 
procedure, which my amendment would have given, so if there are flaws, 
and I think there are flaws in this statute, and he does, too, as I 
will point out, you should have it corrected and give this Congress an 
opportunity to correct it as quickly as possible.

                                            Department of Defense,


                          Office of the Chief Defense Counsel,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 2006.
       Re Military Commission Act of 2006

     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton: I am 
     writing to express my views on the desirability of requiring 
     that the Federal courts provide expedited review of any new 
     military commission system. I am the Chief Defense Counsel 
     for the Office of Military Commissions and I am writing in 
     that capacity. I do not purport to speak for the 
     Administration, the Department of Defense, or any other 
     entity.
       In December 2005, Congress adopted legislation to preclude 
     habeas corpus relief for Guantanamo detainees. Of course, in 
     Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court interpreted that 
     legislation as applying only to future habeas petitions and 
     not to habeas cases that had already been filed. If the 
     Supreme Court had ruled the other way--an outcome that the 
     current version of the Military Commission Act of 2006 would 
     achieve--the results would have been disastrous.
       In Hamdan, the Supreme Court declared that the old military 
     commission system was ``illegal.'' Having been intimately 
     familiar with the actual practice in the old military 
     commission system, I agree with the Supreme Court that the 
     old system would not have produced trials that were fair or 
     that appeared to be fair. If the Detainee Treatment Act of 
     2005 had been interpreted as applying retroactively, then I 
     would be in Guantanamo Bay today for a military commission 
     trial. The decision by the Supreme Court declaring the system 
     illegal wouldn't have come for years. The result then would 
     be to wipe out many convictions obtained at a cost of tens of 
     millions of dollars. Thank goodness the Supreme, Court 
     reviewed the military commission system when it did.
       Many aspects of the Military Commission Act of 2006 will be 
     the subject of constitutional challenge. And whatever bill 
     Congress passes will be the subject of judicial scrutiny. As 
     Justice Kennedy noted in his crucial Hamdan concurrence, 
     ``Because Congress has prescribed these limits, Congress can 
     change them, requiring a new analysis consistent with the 
     Constitution and other governing laws.'' Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 
     126 S. Ct. 2749, 2808 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring) 
     (emphasis added).
       Consider, for example, the bill's approach to hearsay 
     evidence conflicts with the most basic Anglo-American concept 
     of the right to confront one's accuser. The bill appears to 
     set up a system in which an individual can be convicted--and 
     possibly sentenced to death--on the basis of mere written 
     statements. It would allow an individual to be sentenced to 
     death without ever having the opportunity to look his accuser 
     in the eye and subject him to cross-examination. As Justice 
     Scalia has written for the Supreme Court, our Founding 
     Fathers adopted the Confrontation Clause in response to 
     arguments that ``[n]othing can be more essential than the 
     cross examining [of] witnesses, and generally before the 
     triers of the facts in question. . . . [W]ritten evidence . . 
     . [is] almost useless; it must be frequently taken ex parte, 
     and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.'' 
     Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 49 (2004) (quoting 
     Richard Henry Lee, Letter IV by the Federal Farmer (Oct. 15, 
     1787), reprinted in 1 Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A 
     Documentary History 469, 473 (1971)). The military commission 
     system established under this legislation is vulnerable to 
     constitutional challenge along these lines, and many others. 
     It is in everyone's interest to know sooner, rather than 
     later, whether the new system is unconstitutional. If not, it 
     is in everyone's interest to fix the legislation sooner 
     rather than later.
       Instead of seeking to delay judicial assessment of the 
     military commission system, Congress should expedite it. The 
     Military Commissions Act should provide for a three-judge 
     district court to immediately hear a challenge to the 
     constitutionality of the new system. In the Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, 
     Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge and set up a 
     system to quickly resolve such a challenge. That approach 
     succeeded spectacularly. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 
     (2003). If the new military commission system is 
     constitutionally permissible, allow it to proceed with the 
     judiciary's imprimatur. If, as I believe, it is 
     constitutionally deficient, then allow the judiciary to 
     quickly identify its faults so that they can be corrected.
       But regardless of whether you agree with such an expedited 
     approach, attempting to prevent the courts from, analyzing 
     the new military commission system for years is the worst 
     approach of all. I urge you to reject the portions of the 
     Military Commission Act of 2006 that would deprive the 
     federal courts of any ability to review the military 
     commission system until after it has produced a final 
     conviction.
       I would be happy to provide any additional information. The 
     best way to contact me is by e-mail at 
     [email protected].
           Very Respectfully,
                                               Dwight H. Sullivan,
                                                   Colonel, USMCR.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My colleagues, let's get this straight, the Supreme Court did not say 
that Congress did not have the right to prescribe this new structure 
under which we are going to prosecute terrorists. They said we had the 
obligation. They said that the President couldn't do this himself, that 
it had to be participated in by Congress and we should put together 
these rules and regulations.
  We have put together a structure that will allow us to prosecute 
terrorists efficiently and effectively, and at the same time, 
understand the exigencies of the battlefield.
  If you use the UCMJ, which I know a lot of folks on the other side 
want to do, under the testimony of our experts, and that means JAG 
officers who have tried hundreds of cases, you would have to give 
Miranda warnings to an insurgent who shot at you outside of Kabul, 
Afghanistan, at the moment you captured him and threw him over the hood 
of your Humvee. You can't do that. You can't follow the UCMJ in that 
respect.
  We have given a boatload of rights. We have given the right to 
counsel, the right to an impartial judge, presumption of innocence, 
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, right to be informed of 
the charges as soon as practicable, right to service of charges 
sufficiently in advance of trial, right to reasonable continuances. 
This list goes on and on. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was alleged to 
have designed the attack on 9/11 that killed thousands of Americans, 
will have a greater body of rights, as Mr. Lungren has said, in his 
trial than anybody under a similar tribunal system has ever had.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: I believe that 
there is a special place in hell reserved for the planners and 
perpetrators of 9/11. But 5 years after 9/11, we have yet to hold and 
try one single terrorist accountable. And sadly, today we have before 
us a bill that, if passed in its current form, will do nothing but put 
us in further legal limbo, further delaying punishment for these 
terrorists.
  We need clear legislation and swift, tough and fair justice to be 
sure that we don't observe another 9/11 anniversary without these 
terrorists punished.
  How do we go about that? Well, I can tell you that we don't do it by 
passing this bill. We need a bill that is not going to be turned over 
by the Supreme Court, a bill that is clear about our commitment in the 
United States to common article 3 and to the kind of rule of law and 
the law of war that will be sure that these perpetrators of 9/11 and 
others meet justice and do it quickly.
  Right now, we have before us a bill that the Republicans pretty much 
negotiated among themselves that allows

[[Page 20075]]

the President to redefine torture when and how he sees fit, and will 
put our armed services at risk for abuse if they are ever captured 
while doing little to obtain the intelligence we need from captured 
terrorists.
  That is why so many retired generals, JAG officers and senior 
military experts oppose the President's plan and say very clearly that 
we must not go down this road that will put our troops in danger.
  The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili, and 
over 40 former military officers and Pentagon officials, wrote recently 
that the Geneva Conventions are currently the only source of legal 
protection for many of our troops deployed in harm's way throughout the 
world.
  That is why my amendment that was not approved by the Rules Committee 
is an important opportunity to get this right. We do have to do this 
now. It is important to do it now. But we cannot rush to judgment and 
get it wrong again.
  Keep in mind the President's original plan has not given us the 
ability to prosecute anyone because they got it wrong. And because they 
blew it, and are about to blow it again, we are still not going to be 
able to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, which is what we want 
to do.
  Ladies and gentlemen, please support a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so we can amend this bill, do the right thing, and get a bill 
that we can bring to the President to sign soon.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me make a point about an error that was 
just made in the statement of my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
California.
  The President cannot redefine torture. The grave offenses are 
prohibited and defined as war crimes. You cannot do them, and torture 
is defined as one of the grave offenses. The President cannot redefine 
torture. All the President can do is do administrative regulations with 
respect to offenses that are not grave offenses, and that includes 
torture. The President cannot redefine torture.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the rule 
for H.R. 6166.
  I hear from a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
and particularly heard in our hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee, 
a complaint about process.
  I understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is what the minority party does. 
That is what we would do if we were in that situation. That is what we 
have done in the past. I understand those complaints about process.
  But this is now where the rubber meets the road. This is about 
policy. This is a bill that we need their full support on. The men and 
women that work in our intelligence community, the CIA agents, the 
interrogators, the military personnel, they need our support. We 
shouldn't be giving more rights to the terrorists than we do to our own 
people who are fighting every day to protect us.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that these detainees, 
whether they are in prison in eastern Europe or at Guantanamo Bay, they 
are not there because they were caught chewing bubble gum in class, or 
throwing spitballs. These are very, very bad guys that were caught on 
the battlefield in Afghanistan with weapons in hand. Or in some 
instances, preparing improvised explosive devices to blow our young men 
and women to smithereens. So I don't think they deserve any special 
rights. They deserve the right to counsel and a fair trial, and that is 
what we are giving them. These people are out of uniform. They are not 
fighting for any particular government. They are targeting civilians. 
They are beheading the prisoners, including Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, 
and from my own district, Mr. Speaker, a government contract worker, a 
husband and a father, Jack Helmsley.
  They don't qualify for rights under the Geneva Convention, even 
though the President has tried to extend them those rights. The Supreme 
Court, of course, in their recent ruling, says we have to do that, so 
that is what we are doing. We are giving them rights. We are being a 
whole lot kinder to them than they ever would be to us because of our 
moral standards. I think that is important.
  I think this is a bill that gets it right and it deserves the support 
of Members on both sides of the aisle. I hope my colleagues, when the 
rubber meets the road, when we get to the vote, they will think about 
policy and not process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as I always remind my colleagues, I am a 
mother of five children and I have five grandchildren going on six in 
October. Their personal safety is of paramount importance to me, as it 
is to every parent of their children and grandchildren in our country.
  As elected officials, our primary responsibility is to protect and 
defend our country, to provide for the common defense. It is in the 
Constitution of the United States.
  So to come to this floor on this very important debate and to hear 
the Representative from Georgia, to imply that this issue of punishing 
those who do harm or could do harm to our country is not a priority for 
every Member of this body is a disservice to this debate and dishonors 
our Constitution.
  How dare you come to this floor and imply that we think that these 
people are being tried for chewing gum. They have committed the most 
heinous acts that we have witnessed in our lives. Every American wants 
them prosecuted and punished. Every American wants them prosecuted and 
punished.
  I will not yield. You had your time. You demeaned this debate by 
implying that we think they were being tried for chewing gum. That is 
what you said. The Record will show it.
  But it isn't just you. It isn't just you. It is the condescension and 
the disrespect for something that we should expect every Member of this 
body on both sides of the aisle to take very, very seriously: To 
provide for the common defense.

                              {time}  1215

  We have that officially as our responsibility. It is our first 
responsibility because, unless our people are safe, nothing else really 
matters. And as a mother, as a parent, as a mother of five and a 
grandmother of five going on six, as I constantly remind you all, I 
identify with the concerns of all of America's families for safety in 
their neighborhoods while these Republicans are cutting the Community 
Policing program, Cops on the Beat program. So it just is very 
pervasive.
  But, again, we all want a safe home, a safe community, a safe 
neighborhood, homeland security, and to be able to protect our country 
wherever our interests are threatened in the world. And the ability to 
anticipate what those dangers may be is a very important one as well.
  It is 5 years since 9/11. Not one person who has been directly 
responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. There is 
something wrong with this picture. And this bill that is here today, 
because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, 
also, as Mr. Skelton said, will produce convictions that may well be 
overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the 
Supreme Court, a Supreme Court friendly to this administration, which 
has directed it to go back to the drawing board.
  Democrats bring to this debate an unshakeable commitment, as do 
Republicans, to the proposition that terrorists who attack Americans 
must be caught, convicted, and punished in a judicial process that will 
withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. We want them in jail. We 
want them punished, whatever that punishment is. We don't want it 
overturned. And that is what this debate is about today.
  The American people want those who perpetrated and are responsible 
for 9/11

[[Page 20076]]

to be prosecuted without further delay. It is 5 years later, and they 
want convictions to stick so that justice will not be further 
postponed. It is inexplicable. How do you explain to people that 5 
years later this has not happened, and not one single planner has even 
been brought to trial?
  The bill does not help us achieve the goal of bringing anyone to 
trial. It is badly flawed. It threatens the safety of our troops, our 
ability to prosecute terrorists effectively, our ability to protect the 
American people, and to honor our oath of office to protect and defend 
the Constitution. Rather than welcoming suggestions for improvements, 
Republicans refuse to hear them at all.
  The only one recourse that we have is to defeat this rule so that we 
can offer amendments to address some of the bill's most glaring 
deficiencies in the areas of, one, habeas corpus; two, Geneva 
Conventions standards; and the appeals process. If we do not, I 
believe, as I have said, that we will be headed for a repeat of Hamdan 
v. Rumsfeld, a Supreme Court defeat for the President and a decision 
that sends us back to square one in terms of bringing those responsible 
for 9/11 to trial.
  By seeking to strip Federal courts of habeas corpus review, this bill 
is practically begging to be overturned by the courts. Habeas corpus is 
one of the hallmarks of our legal system and our democracy. It is the 
last line of defense against arbitrary executive power. And on that 
subject, we had a rule that was proposed by Mr. Meehan. It was rejected 
by the Rules Committee. Hopefully, we can reject the previous question 
so that we can bring that up.
  Then, permitting indefinite detention under conditions that cannot be 
challenged in court is so contrary to our history and our values that 
it should raise all sorts of red flags. Yet this bill rushes us 
headlong into a court-stripping misadventure that will have disastrous 
consequences for our efforts to combat terrorism. Let us not go there. 
That is habeas corpus.
  In addition, the bill establishes an appeals process, and it is 
interesting, Mr. Speaker. The appeals process in this bill ignores the 
existing highly respected appellate military system that provides a 
direct route to the Supreme Court, expedited. Rather than deferring to 
the military justice system that is very respected by the military and 
that is now in place, the bill creates a new appeals court with no 
track record and a longer, longer path to the Supreme Court review, 
which will delay justice.
  Perhaps most distressing, this bill could very well boomerang on us, 
putting American troops in danger.
  Redefining the Geneva Conventions in ways that lower the treatment 
standards the Conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
  This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in effect. Do 
not do unto others what you would not have them do unto your troops, 
your CIA agents, your people in the field.
  And God bless our military personnel, our men and women in uniform, 
our intelligence officers who are out there for their patriotic service 
to our country. They are best protected by an international commitment 
to the highest possible standards for the treatment of prisoners. Why 
would we want to do something that at the same time jeopardizes the 
safety of our troops and weakens the moral basis for our efforts 
against terrorists? And experts have testified over and over again that 
that kind of treatment does not produce intelligence that is of value 
and reliability that we need to protect the American people and to 
bring these terrorists to justice.
  Democrats have proposed amendments on these issues, habeas corpus, 
Geneva Conventions, the appeals process, but the rule, as drafted, will 
not let us consider them. This House once again is shutting us down on 
debate. As yesterday, this House said ``no'' to the resolution that 
said we want all Members of Congress to see the National Intelligence 
Estimate so that we can stipulate, all of us together, to a set of 
facts of how the war in Iraq is having a negative impact on the war on 
terror. Yesterday they said ``no.'' Today the Republicans said ``no.'' 
It is just a constant chant.
  These subjects are just too important to allow those results to 
stand. If we defeat the previous question, the opposition to which is 
being led by Congresswoman Slaughter--and I thank you, Congresswoman 
Slaughter, for your leadership on this important issue on the Rules 
Committee. Under your leadership, if we win, we can thoroughly debate 
all of the matters raised by this legislation.
  Let us do the job that we were elected to do on this, one of the 
pivotal issues of our time. Let us honor our oath of office to protect 
and defend the Constitution and our responsibility to protect the 
American people and to prosecute and punish those who would do harm to 
them.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say quickly for the 
record I think we are operating by the Golden Rule. I wish our 
opponents were. I wish they extended to American soldiers the same 
rights that they are given under this legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, my fellow Rules Committee member, 
Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of this important legislation.
  Is it perfect? No. Do we have an obligation to pass it? Yes. It is 
very important that this Congress passes it as soon as possible.
  First of all, the most important thing that this legislation does, 
that it accomplishes, is that it protects our troops and intelligence 
officers. Sources and methods of intelligence gathering are protected. 
The security of this country, the American people, thus and for many 
other reasons, the security of this country is protected and is 
enhanced by this legislation. And that is the most important 
ingredient, I believe, in this legislation.
  Secondly, it conforms with the rule of law, including international 
law, specifically common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Ad hoc 
courts are not acceptable. And what is necessary is established by this 
legislation, regularly constituted courts established by law, with 
judgments appealable to the Federal appellate court in the District of 
Columbia. The rule of law is satisfied by this legislation.
  It is a very delicately balanced legislation, that while satisfying 
our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, at the same time it 
protects the methods and sources of gathering intelligence and our 
intelligence officers and the troops in the field.
  This is very important legislation. It is important that the Congress 
pass it as soon as possible. I strongly support it and urge its 
passage.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule 
and to the underlying bill. We are rushing through a bill under a 
closed rule without the right to debate amendments.
  This is a bill which will have tremendous ramifications for our 
Nation, our judiciary, and our military, and we are given a closed 
rule. This process is an absolute outrage. It demeans our democracy. I 
regret that we must even consider such legislation, but we must because 
the Bush administration has broken and abused the honor, integrity, and 
standing of the United States.
  For the past 5 years, the Bush administration has repeatedly acted in 
ways that betray America's commitment to the rule of law. Prisoners 
have been held in secret prisons without any due process or even access 
by the Red Cross. Others have been held at Guantanamo to avoid judicial 
oversight and the application of U.S. treaty obligations toward 
detainees.
  The executive branch has operated under a bizarre set of legal 
theories that have been rejected by dozens of our highest-ranking 
former military officers and representatives of the Judge Advocates 
General Corps, all of whom have warned of the dangers such opinions 
pose to our own uniformed men and women in the field, now and in the 
future.
  Interrogation practices were approved at the highest levels of the 
Pentagon, which General Counsel of the

[[Page 20077]]

Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive and clearly contrary 
to everything we were ever taught about American values.''
  According to press reports, the CIA has used a variety of methods 
that the United States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and 
routinely denounced as torture when they were used by other 
governments.
  Mr. Speaker, we would not need to be here if the Bush administration 
had simply adhered to the letter and spirit of U.S. law and the Geneva 
Conventions. We would not be here if the Bush administration had called 
upon our best and most experienced military interrogators, those who 
undergo rigorous training at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, because 
violations of U.S. and international law would not have occurred, and 
we likely would have obtained intelligence of higher quality and value.
  We would not be here if the Bush administration had directed all 
interrogators across all agencies to adhere to the letter of the Army 
Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions.
  Now, I wish I could say President Bush and his advisers have come to 
grips with how they have undermined and tarnished America's reputation 
as a nation that stands foursquare in support of the rule of law, 
justice, and human rights. But this legislation proves that precious 
little has been learned.
  Instead, this bill will prevent any accountability for violations of 
the law carried out in the past. It will immunize from prosecution 
anyone who might have committed abuses or crimes. And when we immunize 
those who carried out abuses, we extend that blessing to those who 
issued such orders and provided such guidance.
  Mr. Speaker, scores of military officers in the field rejected the 
orders and guidance to use so-called ``alternative methods'' during 
interrogation, namely, torture. They knew those orders violated the 
law. But we are not rewarding those fine officers for sticking with the 
law. They are not being honored for their professionalism or for the 
quality of the intelligence they provided.
  But those who broke the law will be rewarded along with those who 
ordered them to break the law. If this bill passes, we will even strip 
individuals who are detained of their rights and ability to challenge 
the factual and legal basis of their detention. Why? Because the White 
House does not believe in the checks and balances of democracy.

                              {time}  1230

  They are angry that twice the Supreme Court has pointed out the 
failures of our detainee policies, practices and procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we do this? If some other country were holding 
American citizens in detention and rewriting their laws in just this 
way to deal with our people, would we be encouraging such an effort?
  Mr. Speaker, let me say quite simply why I oppose this bill. I oppose 
this bill because I am a proud American, and this bill runs contrary to 
the very values on which our country was founded and for which we stand 
like a beacon to the rest of the world: The rule of law, due process 
and respect for human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear for the soul of this Nation.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there are some things that need to be 
addressed. For one thing, putting the judge advocate generals of the 
service, as great as some of them are, on a pedestal is inappropriate. 
When I served 4 years in the Judge Advocate General Corps on active 
duty, we had one TJAG that did not even know what post he was at from 
time to time. So it must be taken in context.
  But when I hear Members here on the floor say, gee, by passing this 
bill we are putting troops at risk, let me tell you what will put 
troops at risk, when we start applying criminal law standards that I 
observed during my years as a judge and chief justice, you start 
applying those, the forensics in the battleground area, you are putting 
troops at risk.
  When a man and a woman has to fire in self-defense and also be 
thinking about, gee, can I go get that that has fingerprints, DNA, I 
better go collect evidence for the trial that will be upcoming, then 
that puts them at risk. Please do not put our troops at further risk by 
making them comply with civil standards back here in this country.
  You know, people have declared war on us, and to say that those 
people will deserve constitutional standards, let me tell you, there 
are judges that have ruled the Constitution means inmates require 
electric typewriters, televisions, things like that. It is totally 
inappropriate.
  The Constitution itself says, in article I, that: ``We shall 
constitute tribunals.'' We will do these things. That is what we are 
doing. It is constitutional. To respond to perhaps the rhetorical 
question by the minority leader, how dare we? How dare we? How dare I? 
Because the Constitution says: We will provide for the common defense, 
not provide for the criminal defense of those at war with us. That is 
how dare I, that is how dare we.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question so that I can amend this closed rule and allow the 
House to consider three critical amendments that were rejected by the 
Rules Committee last evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment offered by 
Representative Meehan would restore habeas corpus, one of the most 
basic principles in our legal system which allows a person detained by 
the Government to have a judge review his or her case.
  The next amendment, which was offered by Mrs. Tauscher, strikes the 
provision in the bill that would reinterpret and weaken our commitment 
to the Geneva Conventions. The last amendment, by Representative 
Loretta Sanchez, would modify the appeals process by providing that the 
existing and experienced U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 
and then the Supreme Court would be used instead of creating a brand 
new court system that is untested and untried.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we will be considering shortly makes very 
extraordinary changes to the way we deal with interrogation and 
treatment of prisoners of war, and those incarcerated from the war on 
terror.
  It is undoubtedly one of the most deadly serious issues we will deal 
with in this Congress. The impact of this legislation is not just about 
the effect that it will have on those individuals that our Nation 
apprehends in wartime and in the War Against Terror.
  Every bit as important are the far-reaching implications that it will 
have for our soldiers and citizens who may be captured. This is about 
protecting them from torture and other inhumane treatment. The three 
amendments are critical components in this process. They need to be a 
part of the process today.
  Let's do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that we may consider these issues today. The lives of the brave men and 
women protecting our great Nation depend on it. Again, I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today in closing, I want to again 
draw the attention of Members to the strength of the underlying 
bicameral compromise legislation, H.R. 6166. We have had a vigorous and 
good debate on the rule which I believe will help convince the House to 
support this vital measure.
  I honestly believe when Members sit back and consider the underlying 
legislation carefully, they know we must move forward and pass both the 
rule and the bill. This is not an issue that we can take lightly, and 
we must act

[[Page 20078]]

to enhance and secure America's security by providing the proper legal 
tools for our forces.
  I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have 
spoken against this measure are very sincere and are very honorable in 
their intentions. But I want to conclude by adding a personal 
perspective on this particular issue. I had an uncle who served in the 
United States Navy during the Second World War.
  He was captured in the Philippines in 1942, did the Bataan Death 
March, served throughout the war, first in the Philippines and then in 
the mainland of Japan as a prisoner of war.
  During that process, he suffered enormous abuse. The first speech I 
gave on the floor of this House when I was privileged to serve was in 
support of a resolution that was presented in a bipartisan fashion that 
we would hold the then-Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein accountable 
for their treatment of any American POWs that might fall into their 
hands.
  And, frankly, when we had the discussion on the Armed Services 
Committee about Abu Ghraib, I was probably as tough as anybody 
certainly on my side of the aisle in pointing out where I thought we 
had had inconsistencies, shortcomings and failures, and that those 
needed to be corrected.
  But I have also had the opportunity, serving in this body, to go to 
Guantanamo and to talk to our interrogators and talk to our guards and 
talk to them about the nature of the enemy with which we deal. I need 
to remind my good friends, we are not dealing with criminals. We are 
dealing with terrorists.
  We are not dealing with people who have broken our law, we are 
dealing with people that want to kill our citizens. We are dealing with 
an enemy that is very unlike any we have confronted before in the 
history of our country.
  These are not uniformed combatants in the service of a foreign 
country; these terrorists are not uniformed; they are not under the 
supervision of legitimate governments; they do not recognize the Geneva 
Convention; they do not extend to the prisoners that they take of all 
faiths, of all nationalities, any rights, any privileges, any 
protections whatsoever.
  We can be enormously proud as Americans that we have not stooped to 
that standard, that this legislation has been carefully crafted and 
negotiated, ensures the rights, ensures protections, sets up standards. 
And I have no doubt that our courts, our military, our judicial system, 
our legal system, will hold anybody who violates those rights to very 
high standards, as indeed we have done in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good rule and a very good bill. It offers 
us the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, which, as the chairman of 
the Rules Committee pointed out earlier, we have heard a great deal 
about this morning, the need for up and down votes and clarity. We have 
got that here.
  Mr. Speaker, I predict at the end of the day we will have an 
exceptionally strong bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying 
legislation--and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 1042, a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6166, the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006. I oppose the rule because it 
forecloses members from offering constructive amendments that would 
improve a bill that otherwise is unlikely to pass constitutional 
muster.
  Mr. Speaker, among other things, H.R. 6166, seeks to correct the 
deficiencies in the Administration's regime of military commissions 
identified by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. __, 05-
184 (June 29, 2006).
  Although there were more than a dozen amendments offered, the Rules 
Committee did not see fit to make any of them order. This is very 
unfortunate because many of these amendments would lessen the 
likelihood the bill would be found unconstitutional.
  For example, I offered a simple and uncontroversial amendment. It 
simply provided that any costs incurred by the United States to ensure 
that an unlawful enemy combatant receives a fair trial under the system 
of military commissions established by the Act by affording him the 
right to a civilian attorney, interpreter fluent in his native 
language, and expert witnesses where necessary can and shall be 
recouped from any assets confiscated or seized from the terrorist 
organization to which the accused belongs.
  I offered this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the American people 
are generous and fair-minded. We believe in fundamental fairness and 
due process. We believe that the accused in a penal proceeding is 
entitled to the effective assistance of counsel. We believe that the 
adversary legal system depends upon vigorous advocacy, which in turns 
requires that the accused feel free to communicate with his counsel 
candidly and fully, secure in the knowledge that his communications to 
his counsel are privileged from disclosure. We believe that in a 
criminal case, the Government must bear the burden of proving guilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt, and it should be able to do so without 
resorting to secret evidence or evidence it unlawfully obtained.
  But Americans are not foolish. And it would be foolish to expect 
Americans to pick up the tab to pay for competent counsel and expert 
witnesses to testify on his behalf when the accused, or his 
organization, has the means to pay for these services himself. Nothing 
in the Constitution, our law, traditions, or way of life entitles an 
accused to these services free of charge. After all, even in a regular 
criminal case, the Government is obligated to provide the accused an 
attorney only if he cannot afford one. It would be passing strange 
indeed if in our desire to afford an unlawful enemy combatant a fair 
trial, we treated the accused better than we do a common criminal.
  My amendment would have ensured that if a member of al Qaeda is tried 
in a military commission, the costs of his defense would be paid out of 
the captured or confiscated resources of al Qaeda and it allies, and 
not out of the pockets of the American people. This common sense 
amendment was not made in order, as were other sensible and 
constructive amendments offered by my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, the treatment and trials of detainees by the United 
States is too important not to do it right. This closed rule is not the 
right way to justice by the American people. I therefore cannot support 
this closed rule and urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. We 
have time to come up with a better product and we should. The American 
people deserve no less.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       ``This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question.

[[Page 20079]]

     That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
                                  ____


                   Previous Question for H. Res. 1042


              H.R. 6166--Military Commissions Act of 2006

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     there of the following:
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6166) to amend title 10, United States Code, 
     to authorize trial by military commission for violations of 
     the law of war, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
     Member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     amendment printed in Section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. No other amendments shall be in order 
     except those printed in Section 3 of this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     Section 3, may be offered only by the Member designated or a 
     designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
     against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in Section 1 is 
     as follows:
       Page 18, line 21, strike ``violate'' and all that follows 
     through the end of line 24 and insert ``amount to cruel, 
     inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of 
     the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.''.
       Page 20, line 13, insert ``examine and'' after ``and to''.
       Page 27, line 19, strike ``military counsel detailed'' and 
     insert ``detailed military counsel''.
       Page 81, line 3, strike ``36(b)'' and insert ``36''.
       Page 91, line 22, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     second period.
       Page 91, after line 22 insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Definition of grave breaches.--The definitions in 
     this subsection are intended only to define the grave 
     breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United 
     States obligations under that Article.''.
       Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in Section 1 are as 
     follows:
       (a) Amendment to be offered by Representative Meehan of 
     Massachusetts

     Amendment to H.R. 6166 Offered by Mr. Meehan of Massachusetts

       In section 950j of title 10, United States Code, as added 
     by section 3(a)(1) of the bill--
       (1) strike ``(a) Finality.--''; and
       (2) strike subsection (b).
       Strike section 7 (relating to habeas corpus matters).
       (b) Amendment to be offered by Representative Tauscher of 
     California

                        Amendment to H. R. 6166

                 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher of California

       Strike section 6 (relating to implementation of treaty 
     obligations).
       (c) Amendment to be offered by Representative Loretta 
     Sanchez of California

                         Amendment to H.R. 6166

              Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

       Strike sections 950c through 950j of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by section 3(a)(1) (page 51, line 10, 
     and all that follows through page 61, line 15), and insert 
     the following (and conform the table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter VI, as added by section 3(a)(1) (page 
     46, after line 20, through page 47, before line 1), 
     accordingly):

     ``Sec. 950c. Waiver or withdrawal of appeal

       ``(a) Waiver of Right of Review.--(1) An accused may file 
     with the convening authority a statement expressly waiving 
     the right of the accused to appellate review by the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under section 
     950f(a) of this title of the final decision of the military 
     commission under this chapter.
       ``(2) A waiver under paragraph (1) shall be signed by both 
     the accused and a defense counsel.
       ``(3) A waiver under paragraph (1) must be filed, if at 
     all, within 10 days after notice of the action is served on 
     the accused or on defense counsel under section 950b(c)(4) of 
     this title. The convening authority, for good cause, may 
     extend the period for such filing by not more than 30 days.
       ``(b) Withdrawal of Appeal.--Except in a case in which the 
     sentence as approved under section 950b of this title extends 
     to death, the accused may withdraw an appeal at any time.
       ``(c) Effect of Waiver or Withdrawal.--A waiver of the 
     right to appellate review or the withdrawal of an appeal 
     under this section bars review under section 950f of this 
     title.

     ``Sec. 950d. Appeal by the United States

       ``(a) Interlocutory Appeal.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), in a trial by military commission under this 
     chapter, the United States may take an interlocutory appeal 
     to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
     under section 950f of this title of any order or ruling of 
     the military judge that--
       ``(A) terminates proceedings of the military commission 
     with respect to a charge or specification;
       ``(B) excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact 
     material in the proceeding; or
       ``(C) relates to a matter under subsection (c) or (d) of 
     section 949d of this title.
       ``(2) The United States may not appeal under paragraph (1) 
     an order or ruling that is, or amounts to, a finding of not 
     guilty by the military commission with respect to a charge or 
     specification.
       ``(b) Notice of Appeal.--The United States shall take an 
     appeal of an order or ruling under subsection (a) by filing a 
     notice of appeal with the military judge within five days 
     after the date of the order or ruling.
       ``(c) Appeal.--An appeal under this section shall be 
     forwarded, by means specified in regulations prescribed the 
     Secretary of Defense, directly to the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Armed Forces. In ruling on an appeal under 
     this section, the Court may act only with respect to matters 
     of law.

     ``Sec. 950e. Rehearings

       ``(a) Composition of Military Commission for Rehearing.--
     Each rehearing under this chapter shall take place before a 
     military commission under this chapter composed of members 
     who were not members of the military commission which first 
     heard the case.
       ``(b) Scope of Rehearing.--(1) Upon a rehearing--
       ``(A) the accused may not be tried for any offense of which 
     he was found not guilty by the first military commission; and
       ``(B) no sentence in excess of or more than the original 
     sentence may be imposed unless--
       ``(i) the sentence is based upon a finding of guilty of an 
     offense not considered upon the merits in the original 
     proceedings; or
       ``(ii) the sentence prescribed for the offense is 
     mandatory.
       ``(2) Upon a rehearing, if the sentence approved after the 
     first military commission was in accordance with a pretrial 
     agreement and the accused at the rehearing changes his plea 
     with respect to the charges or specifications upon which the 
     pretrial agreement was based, or otherwise does not comply 
     with pretrial agreement, the sentence as to those charges or 
     specifications may include any punishment not in excess of 
     that lawfully adjudged at the first military commission.

     ``Sec. 950f. Review by United States Court of Appeals for the 
       Armed Forces and Supreme Court

       ``(a) Review by United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Armed Forces.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this 
     subsection, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the 
     final validity of any judgment rendered by a military 
     commission under this chapter.
       ``(2) The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces may not determine the final validity of a judgment of 
     a military commission under this subsection until all other 
     appeals from the judgment under this chapter have been waived 
     or exhausted.
       ``(3)(A) An accused may seek a determination by the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces of the final 
     validity of the judgment of the military commission under 
     this subsection only upon petition to the Court for such 
     determination.
       ``(B) A petition on a judgment under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be filed by the accused in the Court not later than 20 days 
     after the date on which written notice of the final decision 
     of the military commission is served on the accused or 
     defense counsel.
       ``(C) The accused may not file a petition under 
     subparagraph (A) if the accused has waived the right to 
     appellate review under section 950c(a) of this title.

[[Page 20080]]

       ``(4) The determination by the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Armed Forces of the final validity of a 
     judgment of a military commission under this subsection shall 
     be governed by the provisions of section 1005(e)(3) of the 
     Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 801 note).
       ``(b) Review by Supreme Court.--The Supreme Court of the 
     United States may review by writ of certiorari pursuant to 
     section 1257 of title 28 the final judgment of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in a 
     determination under subsection (a).

     ``Sec. 950g. Appellate counsel

       ``(a) Appointment.--The Secretary of Defense shall, by 
     regulation, establish procedures for the appointment of 
     appellate counsel for the United States and for the accused 
     in military commissions under this chapter. Appellate counsel 
     shall meet the qualifications of counsel for appearing before 
     military commissions under this chapter.
       ``(b) Representation of United States.--Appellate counsel 
     may represent the United States in any appeal or review 
     proceeding under this chapter. Appellate Government counsel 
     may represent the United States before the Supreme Court in 
     case arising under this chapter when requested to do so by 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(c) Representation of Accused.--The accused shall be 
     represented before the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Armed Forces or the Supreme Court by military appellate 
     counsel, or by civilian counsel if retained by him.

     ``Sec. 950h. Execution of sentence; suspension of sentence

       ``(a) Execution of Sentence of Death Only Upon Approval by 
     the President.--If the sentence of a military commission 
     under this chapter extends to death, that part of the 
     sentence providing for death may not be executed until 
     approved by the President. In such a case, the President may 
     commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, 
     as he sees fit.
       ``(b) Execution of Sentence of Death Only Upon Final 
     Judgment of Legality of Proceedings.--(1) If the sentence of 
     a military commission under this chapter extends to death, 
     the sentence may not be executed until there is a final 
     judgement as to the legality of the proceedings (and with 
     respect to death, approval under subsection (a)).
       ``(2) A judgement as to legality of proceedings is final 
     for purposes of paragraph (1) when--
       ``(A) the time for the accused to file a petition for 
     review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
     Forces has expired and the accused has not filed a timely 
     petition for such review and the case is not otherwise under 
     review by the Court; or
       ``(B) review is completed in accordance with the judgment 
     of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
     and (A) a petition for a writ of certiorari is not timely 
     filed, (B) such a petition is denied by the Supreme Court, or 
     (C) review is otherwise completed in accordance with the 
     judgment of the Supreme Court.
       ``(c) Suspension of Sentence.--The Secretary of the 
     Defense, or the convening authority acting on the case (if 
     other than the Secretary), may suspend the execution of any 
     sentence or part thereof in the case, except a sentence of 
     death.

     ``Sec. 950i. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences

       ``(a) Finality.--The appellate review of records of trial 
     provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and 
     sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or 
     affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and 
     conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military 
     commissions under this chapter are binding upon all 
     departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United 
     States, except as otherwise provided by the President.
       ``(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of 
     Military Commission Procedures and Actions.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or 
     any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or 
     judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim 
     or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending 
     on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, 
     relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military 
     commission under this chapter, including challenges to the 
     lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this 
     chapter.''.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time and move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________