[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23319-23324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of 
rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2892) making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rogers of Kentucky moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2892 
     be instructed as follows:
       (1) Recede to subsection (a) of section 567 of the Senate 
     amendment (the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act).
       (2) Insist on subsections (b) and (c) of section 552 of the 
     House bill (regarding the inclusion of individuals detained 
     at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on the No Fly list and 
     the prohibition on the provision of immigration benefits for 
     such individuals).
       (3) Recede to the Senate position on subsections (a) and 
     (d) of section 552 of the House bill (regarding certain 
     threat assessments and the transfer of individuals detained 
     at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States).
       (4) That they shall not record their approval of the final 
     conference agreement (as such term is used in clause 12(a)(4) 
     of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives) 
     unless the text of such agreement has been available to the 
     managers in an electronic, searchable, and downloadable form 
     for at least 72 hours prior to the time described in such 
     clause.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The motion to instruct conferees is very simple. Madam Speaker. It 
would prohibit the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to the United States. It 
ensures the detainee pictures are never made public, and it mandates 
the conference report is made public at least 72 hours before being 
considered on the floor. It's that simple. And that's exactly what the 
Homeland Security appropriation bill is all about, protecting the 
American people from all threats, including the warped intentions of 
terrorists and radical extremists.
  Let me state my sincere gratitude to Subcommittee Chairman David 
Price for listening to the views of the minority during all of these 
proceedings, during our preconference deliberations especially over the 
last few weeks. I truly appreciate his bipartisanship and consideration 
of our concerns.
  Madam Speaker, this motion strengthens the House bill's current 
restrictions on Guantanamo Bay detainees by ensuring their names have 
been put on the No Fly List and by clearly prohibiting their transfer 
to the United States for whatever reason. For 9 months, the Obama 
administration has insisted the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be 
shuttered within the year. But what have we seen during that time in 
preparation for that? Absolutely nothing, no plan, no idea of how to 
proceed, no instructions to the Congress, no instructions to the public 
about where these prisoners would be moved to.
  Now we read in the press that the administration is thinking of 
releasing up to 75 of the detainees there. Where will they go? Europe, 
Fiji, maybe somewhere closer. Maybe in Michigan, maybe in Kansas, maybe 
somewhere else in the U.S. Who knows. Certainly the Members in those 
districts in the U.S. don't know. So this motion prohibits the granting 
of any immigration benefit for any reason to these detainees. Without 
such a benefit, there is no legal way to bring these terrorists to 
American soil and in our constituents' backyards. That means these 
terrorists cannot be granted the same constitutional rights as American 
citizens. After all, these detainees are enemy combatants caught on the 
battlefield. They are not common criminals, and they should not be 
granted legal standing in our criminal courts by bringing them onto 
U.S. soil.
  From my point of view, we can't waiver on this issue, nor can we be 
weak. There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and 
documented threat to this Nation, cannot be brought to justice right 
where they are in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay. If we want to try them, there 
is the place. I certainly think that that is where the American people 
stand on this issue as well. They don't want these terrorists in their 
hometowns, inciting fellow prisoners in our prisons, abusing our legal 
system and terrorizing their communities.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, this motion insists upon the Senate's 
language prohibiting the release of detainee pictures, language 
unanimously adopted in the Senate, supported by this Chamber in June 
and endorsed by President Obama himself by way of his letter to the 
Senate on July 29. In that letter, I think the President said it best 
himself: ``Nothing would be gained by the release of the detainee 
photos other than allowing our enemies to paint our troops with a 
broad, damning, and inaccurate brush.'' I frankly couldn't agree more.
  And finally, Madam Speaker, this motion also requires the conference 
report to be made public at least 72 hours before being brought to the 
floor for consideration. We want to read the bill before we vote.
  So Madam Speaker, the ongoing terrorist investigations ranging from 
Denver to New York to Dallas over the last few weeks and the persistent 
attacks by radical extremists upon our citizens, our soldiers and our 
interests overseas remind us of why there is absolutely no reason to 
bring a terrorist to American soil or to release images that endanger 
this great country and its Armed Forces.
  I urge support of the motion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kentucky and yield 
myself as much time as I may consume.

[[Page 23320]]

  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by echoing the words of the ranking 
member. We have, indeed, enjoyed fruitful cooperation in formulating 
this bill and bringing it to this point. Mr. Rogers is a distinguished 
ranking member. He was the founding chairman of this subcommittee, and 
I think on both sides, we take pride in the process that we've 
developed that involves full consultation and, of course, not always 
perfect agreement, but a respect for each other's views and a product 
that can rightfully be called the fruit of our common labor.
  Having said that, I do want to oppose this motion to instruct. I 
don't oppose it in its entirety. It has some positive features, but I 
want to concentrate in my brief remarks this morning on what leads me 
to ask for a ``no'' vote. This mainly has to do with some parts of 
items two and three of this motion.
  The motion to instruct would basically prevent us from bringing 
anyone held in Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of 
prosecution. This provision is more restrictive than the House-passed 
bill, which allowed persons detained at the naval station at Guantanamo 
Bay to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution.
  Accepting a more narrow provision goes against basic American 
principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given 
due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is 
certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to 
dispose of their cases. I must say, this motion also goes against a 
perfecting amendment that the distinguished ranking member himself 
voluntarily accepted--in fact, eagerly accepted--in our full committee 
markup.
  So I have to ask, what would have made the other side change its mind 
all of a sudden? It appears that even when they get ``yes'' for an 
answer, it's hard to accept ``yes'' for an answer. Without allowing 
these detainees to come to the United States for prosecution, we're 
basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are 
unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that 
our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. 
That's just wrong.
  The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before--in fact, 
many times, executing some, putting others behind bars to fade into 
obscurity. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Murrah 
Federal Building bombings are perfect examples.
  Treating these individuals as though they are so dangerous that we 
cannot possibly put them on trial or punish them or lock them up and 
throw away the key, the way we deal with our most savage criminals here 
in the United States, gives these detainees an exalted status. Why do 
we want to do that? An exalted status is far from what they deserve.
  We can handle this, Madam Speaker. We're up to this challenge, and 
the last thing we ought to be doing is elevating these Guantanamo 
prisoners in the eyes of the world. The amendment that was accepted in 
committee, to permit us to bring these people into the United States 
for the purpose of prosecution, most certainly should remain.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about the process by 
which this bill is being brought to the floor. We, of course, want to 
make certain that Members have ample time to study and understand bills 
before we vote on them. At the same time, I have to say, this bill has 
been a long time in the making. There has been a long period of 
discussion and debate and deliberation, and Members of this body should 
be assured that a full range of interested parties have been involved 
in crafting this bill in a bipartisan fashion since we received the 
budget in May.
  Even before receiving the budget, we held 15 days of hearings on a 
wide variety of topics, including responses to natural disasters, 
technology and efficiency improvements, immigration enforcement, and 
border security. We had testimony from DHS as well as GAO and other 
non-Department sources. So it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the 
issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined. They've been given 
their proper due diligence. There are no surprises, and we are, indeed, 
ready to go to conference.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished chairman of our full committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, from time to time, people in this House know that I 
quote my old favorite philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, and Archie 
said, or maybe it was Will Rogers--I've forgotten exactly which--but 
one of them noted that there is nothing more pitiful than the sight of 
a flock of politicians in full flight. They can look as panicked as a 
loon trying to take off from choppy lake water. And if you've ever 
watched one of those, it takes them a long time, they make a lot of 
ruckus, and they look like an unjointed turkey in the process. That's 
the way the Congress has looked, in my judgment, with respect to this 
Guantanamo Bay issue.
  Now, this country has a problem. After September 11 we picked up a 
lot of bad and dangerous characters and shipped a lot of them to 
Guantanamo. We also picked up, on the basis of bad information, some 
who didn't belong there. From what I can tell, it would appear like 
virtually every single person there now deserves to be there.
  But the problem is that the previous administration had no process by 
which to separate the merely criminal or the merely misguided from the 
truly evil. And as a result, thanks in part to the unrelated chaos of 
Abu Ghraib, the United States, which has rightly prided itself on being 
the principal advocate of due process and human rights in the world, 
has come to be seen by some these days as a pretty major apologist for 
torture and imprisonment without review or remedy. I don't think that's 
what America really stands for.
  President Obama has tried to deal with the fact that Guantanamo has 
become a major liability to this country in the court of world opinion 
and in some cases has become a recruiting ground for the very forces 
that we wish to contain.
  In the Presidential campaign, to their credit, both candidates called 
for closing Guantanamo because they recognized the damage being done to 
our influence and our security. President Obama won that election and 
announced his intention to close the facility.
  Admittedly, the administration did not demonstrate a high degree of 
skill in implementing that decision. They had a credible goal, but they 
clearly had not thought through how to get there. That's why this 
committee insisted in the 2009 supplemental that the administration 
present its analysis to the Congress before people who were imprisoned 
in Guantanamo could be shipped elsewhere and before any detainees could 
be brought to the U.S. or transferred to another country.
  Very frankly, the administration has received very little help from 
Capitol Hill in thinking through this problem. A number of Members have 
had legitimate concerns, but they could not come up with any reasonable 
set of criteria by which transfers could be effected.
  Now, this motion would have this body declare that no prisoners can 
be transferred anywhere in this country even for prosecution, which 
they so richly deserve. That means the detainees would have to be 
transferred to other countries or that Guantanamo would have to remain 
open as a permanent stain on our reputation for due process.
  I think we can do better than that.
  Has this country, this country that has even tried the worst 
criminals in the history of the world at Nuremberg, has this country 
experienced such a pitiful decline of modern thoughtful political 
leadership that we now have no capacity except to say lock them up 
forever, no questions asked, and no due process provided under any 
circumstances? We may want to lock

[[Page 23321]]

them up. I'm sure we do. But we can do better in the way we do it.
  In America we do not provide due process for the benefit of 
criminals; we provide it for our own safety's sake.
  I don't know how many Members are familiar with the play ``A Man for 
All Seasons'' about Sir Thomas More, who was martyred by King Henry 
VIII. When More's son-in-law, Richard Roper, in that famous play, said 
that he would cut down every law in England to get at the devil, More 
replied, ``And where would you hide then, the laws all being flat? Yes, 
I give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.''
  That's why it's important that we have a process that will allow us 
to lock up and throw away the key on everyone in Guantanamo who 
deserves it; but we cannot tell the world that just because this 
process is difficult, we are simply going to take the easy road and 
step over the valleys that make this Nation great.
  I refuse to believe, as the gentleman from North Carolina has already 
indicated, I refuse to believe that our law enforcement officials, our 
prison officials, and our Justice Department officials are not skilled 
enough and thoughtful enough to imprison these thugs in high-security 
facilities at minimal or no danger to our citizens and our communities. 
Our prisons keep us safe from the likes of Charles Manson; David 
Berkowitz, the ``Son of Sam'' killer; the World Trade Center bombers; 
and the Kenyan Embassy bombers, whom I detest because they killed 
several friends of mine. What we want to propose in conference will be 
built on the faith that we do have that capacity.
  Now, we can either let somebody else deal with our problems, or we 
can let them fester because we don't want to deal with them and make 
hard choices ourselves. That's unacceptable, and I think it's time that 
we face up to that.
  What will emerge from conference, I suspect, will be language that 
any reasonable person will be able to say is a good-faith, effective 
process by which we can keep Americans safe and still continue to stand 
for the due process principles that we have always stood for.
  I know these people are enemy combatants and they don't deserve it. 
But we don't make our decisions on the basis of what we think of 
defendants. We make our decisions on the basis of what we think of 
ourselves. And that's what makes us the greatest country in the world. 
And I do not want, as this motion would have us do, to depart from that 
high standard today.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, this motion prohibits the granting of any benefits to 
the detainees at Guantanamo to be brought here for criminal 
prosecution.
  As Mr. Obey has just said, these are enemy combatants caught, 
captured on a battlefield. They are not criminal defendants; they are 
prisoners in a war. Prisoners in a war.
  They can and have been tried by the military tribunals at Guantanamo. 
My understanding is that there were five military tribunal proceedings 
ongoing until this administration halted those proceedings, trying to 
figure out what they want to do next.
  But my point is these are not criminal defendants; these are enemy 
combatants captured on a battlefield. They are prisoners of war and 
should be treated as such, as they have been at Guantanamo. Do not 
bring them to the U.S. for any purpose. Why would you bring an enemy 
captured prisoner of war to your country, give them the Miranda 
warnings, and proceed to a trial as you would an American citizen? It's 
beyond any question, I think.
  These detainees, many of them, those who posed a minimal security 
threat, have been shuttled off to other foreign countries, leaving 
hundreds of suspected terrorists, hardened killers that are unwelcome 
by any place on Earth to be potentially bound for American soil.
  Madam Speaker, we need to take a very serious step back and closely 
examine what we are thinking of doing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  This motion clarifies and says they would not be brought here for 
any, any, purpose, including prosecution.
  Now, if you have any doubts about the kind of people we are talking 
about, read the resumes of these detainees. Read them, and you will 
have no doubt that these are enemy combatants sworn to kill you and 
every American they can find. And you want to bring them to the U.S.? 
It's insane, Madam Speaker. It's insane.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a very distinguished former trial 
judge in the State of Texas for 21 years, Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, this debate goes on, and I hearken back to 
how did this all start. It started with enemies of the United States 
killing American citizens on American soil. By the grace of God, they 
didn't kill the number they were hoping to kill because they were 
hoping to bring down those towers in New York completely full of 
people, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people could have 
died. But because of the braveness of the police force and the fire 
department and others, we were able to evacuate those buildings and the 
casualty toll was not in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of 
thousands. But, still, every single American life lost there we care 
about.
  I think most people thought we're going to war, world war. That's 
what I thought. That's what the people I was with in Taos, New Mexico, 
at the time thought. And we wanted to do something about it. The 
American soldiers in two fields of battle have done something about it. 
They continue to do something about it today. And through the work of 
our intelligence people and the American soldier and the American 
Marine Corps, we have brought many of these terrorists to captivity. 
They are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
  We're not talking about people who have rights to Miranda warnings. 
My Lord, how can you fight a war if you're going to have to have 
Miranda warnings every time you come in contact with an enemy soldier? 
It makes no sense. Neither our Founding Fathers nor the Supreme Court, 
I would say, ever envisioned us giving Miranda warnings on the 
battlefield.
  But I believe and I think Americans believe that these people mean us 
harm and by their very presence on the sacred soil of the United States 
they bring harm to this country. Because I would argue, as we all know, 
the recruiting of radical Islam is going on in our prisons right now. 
Witness just recently some arrests that were made inside this country 
and how those American citizens got to be influenced by radical Islam. 
Much of it comes out of the prison systems. And we are going to put 
people that are being held properly in Guantanamo, we're going to bring 
them to our soil, give them the rights of an American defendant and put 
them in the prison system of this country where they can continue--even 
if they are in solitary confinement, their very presence can make them 
a hero of the recruiters inside the prison.

                              {time}  1045

  Gangs are bad enough in the prisons without us creating gangs that 
are part of an international plot to destroy the United States of 
America. These people have no business being on the sacred soil of the 
United States. They certainly don't have the rights that are being 
argued for here. They are in the right place, where they belong. The 
military justice system is fair and they will get a fair trial, and I 
would argue that they belong in Guantanamo and they should stay in 
Guantanamo.
  Yes, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
we have maximum security prisons that we could put them in. There is 
one that was featured in ``60 Minutes'' awhile back in Colorado where 
we put the worst of the worst; but did anybody listen to how much it 
costs us to put the worst of the worst in those maximum security 
prisons?
  We are spending enough money around here without going out and 
spending that kind of money on prisoners where we already have them in 
a

[[Page 23322]]

secure facility, where they are being humanely treated, and where they 
are able to meet with their lawyers and they are able to prepare for 
the defense of their case. There is no reason on God's green Earth to 
bring them over here and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
incarcerating each and every one of them in a Federal maximum security 
prison. It makes no sense in light of the fact that we are practically 
bankrupting our country with spending in the last 8 months.
  So I think Mr. Rogers has a very good bill here. I think what he is 
asking in this motion to instruct the conferees is common sense that 
the American people understand. Now, we get in this political world up 
here and common sense seems to go out the window. But I think if you 
stop the average American on the street, they will tell you that these 
people intend to kill us and as far as we are concerned, we don't care 
where they stay, but we don't want them in our neighborhood.
  I certainly don't want them in Texas, and I would argue that each 
Member who represents their district in this august body does not want 
them in their neighborhood. I have a Federal prison that is within 30 
miles of my home, and I promise you, my friends and neighbors do not 
want one of these detainees in that Federal prison because they are 
evil and they will corrupt those who are already there.
  Madam Speaker, we spend most of our time in the courtroom giving 
people their constitutional rights as criminal defendants. And I have 
spent, in a criminal case, at least 50 percent of the time spent on 
every criminal case, my job was to protect those people's rights and 
make sure that they got every one of them. I did the very best I could. 
But at some point in time, in a criminal trial, upon the finding of 
guilt, those rights convert over to the State and to the people to make 
decisions on punishment.
  I would argue these people don't start with those rights, and the 
American people have in mind what they think should happen to these 
people that would kill more American citizens on American soil.
  Don't we have the courage of our Greater Generation forefathers to 
stand up to evil when it addresses our country and do something about 
that evil? Why would we want to coddle people who have a proven track 
record of being part of the network that attacked the United States of 
America?
  Madam Speaker, I would argue this is an excellent instruction to the 
conferees, and I believe Mr. Rogers and what he has stated here has 
expressed the will of the American people.
  To address just one of the other issues about photographs, I think 
that pretty well has been decided.
  But, you know, one more thing, as we bring these people here and we 
put them into the American justice system, which I treasure, the 
American justice system, but in turn the defense lawyers will be able 
to use the discovery process to find out about covert operations of the 
United States intelligence. We have already put our intelligence folks 
in bad places by our bad behavior around this place many times before. 
But to put our intelligence people in the courtroom with everybody to 
see, and out those people, if you will, would be absolutely a travesty 
of justice.
  So this is a good thing to do, and I support Mr. Rogers in his 
effort, and I would hope that everybody who cares about this country 
will support this motion.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am still trying to 
process the notion that we have in our high-security prisons a 
population that is just waiting to be corrupted.
  We are all aware of the kind of people who are in these high-security 
prisons. They are already corrupted and they are dangerous, and we have 
proven our capacity to deal with them. I don't think that it behooves 
this body to cast such doubt on our capacities, the capacities of the 
judicial and penal systems of this country. We are up to this, Madam 
Speaker, and yet the motion before us would say that we cannot bring 
these people into this country for prosecution when it is clearly in 
our interest to do so. It is in our interest to close Guantanamo within 
a reasonable period of time and to bring these people before the bar of 
justice.
  I would like to yield 30 seconds to our full committee chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  I find it quite humorous to think that we are doing these Guantanamo 
prisoners a favor by exposing them to the ``gentle niceties'' of the 
prison population in our high-security prisons. In fact, I would 
suspect that those prisoners at Guantanamo, if they knew what kind of 
people they would be finding, would much prefer to stay in Guantanamo 
than wind up in some of those high-security
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time.
  Every so often an issue comes before Congress where I honestly have 
to admit I scratch my head and say, Do I fully understand what we are 
talking about here? Because it makes no sense to me.
  On every appropriations bill that we see come before the full 
committee, there was this notion that we couldn't bring folks from 
Guantanamo here to be prosecuted. Now, I know how dangerous some of 
these folks may be. I know how dangerous some of these folks are. I was 
in New York in my city on September 11. I was not here. Many people 
forget that was primary day in New York. Many people forget that one of 
the accomplishments, if you will, of the terrorists was to suspend, in 
the middle of the day, an election that was taking place in New York. 
They didn't just attack the symbol of our military power. They didn't 
just attack the symbol of our financial power. They were not just 
geared towards attacking, and did not get a chance to do it, to attack 
the symbol of our legislative power, but they disrupted an election, 
which is perhaps at the center of our strength, our electoral process.
  I was there. I saw the pain. I know that they killed a lot of people, 
but they didn't defeat us. Let's be clear about that. They killed a lot 
of Americans, but they didn't defeat us, and they will never defeat us 
unless we begin to run away from who we are as a people and as a 
Nation. Unless we begin to throw away and turn our back on the 
Constitution, on what makes us a unique country, then they have a 
chance to win.
  My friend, and we say this on the floor, but he truly is my friend 
from Kentucky, says, Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to 
bring them here? Because we are the United States of America. Because 
we are a great democracy that is not afraid to bring people to justice 
when they deserve to come to justice. Because we have nothing to hide.
  Ironically, on another issue that I discussed with my friend at 
length over the years, we want nothing to do with Cuba except to use 
them to hold people there for trial. Why not bring them to New York 
where they committed their act, the scene of their crime? Why not let 
the world know in the middle of our pain, in the midst of all of our 
anguish over September 11, we are big enough and democratic enough to 
bring people to trial here within our territory. We have nothing to 
fear.
  As far as whether or not there will be Miranda rights involved and 
whether the people have rights, why not? What is so difficult to 
understand about that? There is a contradiction in a country that 
continuously tells the world we are better, and we are; we are more 
democratic, and we are; we have a better justice system, and we do, and 
at the same time says but not for these individuals.
  Now, if I was making the argument on behalf of the individuals in 
Guantanamo, we know how many were detained and eventually released 
because we have, throughout the last few years, nothing to charge them 
with. It might be that we have to release some and send them back to 
their countries, but this fear that somehow they are going to be 
watching the streets of Washington, D.C., and eating at local 
restaurants and planting bombs everywhere, these folks will probably be 
the most guarded people in the history of

[[Page 23323]]

the world. But we will do ourselves a great disservice if we continue 
to say that they cannot be brought to the United States for justice.
  Why should they be near our community residents was one of the 
questions asked. I see it differently. Why not see our system in full 
bloom? Why not allow the world to see and understand that we are not 
afraid to bring people here to pay for their crimes, to go before our 
justice system.
  Now, here is another question. So we bring them to justice in 
Guantanamo. We find them guilty in Guantanamo. Are we going to 
incarcerate them in Guantanamo? Are we going to keep them in a foreign 
country for crimes they committed against our country or are we going 
to bring them to a prison here? If we bring them to a prison here, 
after convicted, those who are convicted, why not try them here to 
begin with?
  Again, this whole notion that these people have no rights, the 
terrorists win if we suggest that everybody that comes before us has no 
rights. That's why I oppose this motion.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 14 minutes. 
The gentleman from North Carolina has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my 
greatest appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member for the job they have done on this bill, which will be 
perfected by this motion to instruct.
  Clearly, the work that involves our dealing with these detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay is very important work. We have been waiting for a long 
time now for a complete report from the administration giving us an 
indication as to how they would implement this campaign promise. We 
find ourselves in a circumstance today where it is apparent that a 
pretty sizable number of detainees are in plan for release somewhere, 
perhaps not the continental United States, but foreign countries and 
otherwise.
  It is almost impossible to discuss, in this environment, the most 
serious concern about these detainees, for much of the information 
involved is highly classified information. But, needless to say, this 
is a group of very dangerous people, and a lot of circumstances have 
changed since the bill has come out of committee and we finally have it 
here on the floor for consideration by the conference.
  Perfecting this package as we go forward by passing this motion to 
instruct would bring us very close to being in mesh with what is being 
proposed in the other body. It would appear that the leadership of our 
committee in the other body feels pretty strongly that we should not be 
spending funds that would allow these detainees to come to the United 
States.
  This motion to instruct, I believe, will cause our conference to be a 
much more comfortable conference when we go there. I would urge the 
Members strongly to support Mr. Rogers' motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have no further 
speakers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We have no further speakers, Madam Speaker, 
and I would be prepared to yield to the gentleman for a close.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reiterate my request to 
our Members to vote against this motion to recommit. The motion is long 
and complex and by no means totally objectionable. But we have 
highlighted here today a feature of the Guantanamo provisions which not 
only is objectionable, but fundamentally runs counter to our country's 
interest--our country's interest in closing Guantanamo in a timely 
fashion and bringing the detainees there to trial.
  It also, in a strange way, seems to question our country's capacity, 
the capacity of our judicial system and our penal system, to handle 
hardened criminals, whereas I think that our capacity to handle even 
the most dangerous criminals is beyond question. And I believe this 
motion also risks elevating these criminals in the eyes of the world, 
suggesting that we can not handle them through our normal processes of 
justice. For all these reasons, I believe this motion to instruct is 
unwise, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. In closing, this is a very simple motion to instruct the 
conferees on Homeland Security. One, prohibit the transfer of Gitmo 
prisoners to the U.S., period. Two, insist on the Senate language 
prohibiting the release of detainee photographs. And three, require 
that this bill be available at least 72 hours before the bill is 
brought to the floor so that Members may have a chance to read and 
consider before they vote on the conference report. That's simple.
  These people in Gitmo, if you read their resumes, and study their 
history, they are not criminal defendants in the sense that most people 
understand that phrase to be in the U.S. These are hardened killers 
captured on the battlefield, and they are prisoners of war subject to a 
military tribunal hearing at Gitmo, which was proceeding until stopped 
by this administration. They are not criminal defendants. They are 
hardened criminals on the battlefield captured in the process of trying 
to kill American soldiers. Pure and simple.
  Now, this motion to instruct is in line with Chairman Inouye in the 
Senate, who has similar prohibitions in his bill for the Defense 
appropriations bill. This mirrors what the Senate leadership wants the 
policy of the country to be. And so I would hope all Members would vote 
for this motion to instruct conferees and keep our position in line 
with the Senate in prohibiting prisoners at Gitmo from being brought to 
the U.S., period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to 
instruct conferees will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending the 
rules and agreeing to H. Res. 517 and H. Res. 487.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258, 
nays 163, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 746]

                               YEAS--258

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins

[[Page 23324]]


     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Adler (NJ)
     Barrett (SC)
     Capuano
     Carney
     Maloney
     McCarthy (CA)
     Neugebauer
     Schmidt
     Shadegg
     Stark
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1140

  Messrs. GONZALEZ, CLEAVER, BLUMENAUER, DICKS, HINOJOSA, DAVIS of 
Illinois, BRADY of Pennsylvania, LEWIS of Georgia, GUTIERREZ, WEINER, 
OLVER, PAYNE, ENGEL, HARE, VAN HOLLEN, HOLT, SESTAK, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. 
LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. JACKSON-
LEE of Texas, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. EDWARDS 
of Maryland, Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. DOGGETT and LARSEN of Washington 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HERGER, YARMUTH, BILIRAKIS, MOORE of Kansas, WILSON of Ohio 
and TANNER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 746, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________