[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12737-12745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
    PROHIBITING THE TRANSFER OF ANY DETAINEE AT UNITED STATES NAVAL 
                     STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 863, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5351) to prohibit the transfer of any individual 
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 114-744 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5351

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page 12738]]



     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ANY TRANSFER OF ANY INDIVIDUAL 
                   DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, 
                   GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       (a) Prohibition.--No amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     or otherwise available for any department or agency of the 
     United States Government may be used during the period 
     specified in subsection (b) to transfer, release, or assist 
     in the transfer or release to or within the United States, 
     its territories, or possessions, or to any foreign country or 
     entity, of any individual detained at Guantanamo.
       (b) Specified Period.--The period specified in this 
     subsection is the period that--
       (1) begins on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) ends on the earlier of--
       (A) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing 
     appropriations for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2017; or
       (B) January 21, 2017.
       (c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means 
     an individual located at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
       (1) is not a national of the United States (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) or a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States; and
       (2) is--
       (A) in the custody or under the control of the Department 
     of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise detained at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on H.R. 5351.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 5351 offered by Mrs. 
Walorski of Indiana.
  H.R. 5351 would temporarily suspend the transfer of detainees held at 
the detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. Under this 
bill, the suspension would last until either the National Defense 
Authorization Act for the next fiscal year becomes law or until the new 
President takes office on January 21, 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, the circumstances of the last several months have 
brought the need for such legislation to light.
  In 2009, a special panel convened by the Obama administration 
evaluated every detainee then at GTMO. The Obama administration made it 
clear at the time that it was lawful for some detainees to be held, 
without charges, pursuant to the laws of war. Such detainees, the Obama 
administration believed, included those who had a ``significant 
organizational role with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.'' 
Other detainees, the Obama administration believed, should continue to 
be lawfully held in 2009 included those who had ``advanced training or 
experience,'' a ``history of associations with extremist activity,'' or 
had ``expressed recidivist intent.''
  In other cases, the Obama administration has recommended that certain 
detainees be prosecuted and some sent to other countries. But even for 
those GTMO detainees to be sent elsewhere, the Obama administration 
noted that the United States had the legal authority to hold these 
detainees, and the detainees could still be threatening.
  The Obama administration argued then and since that a few selected 
detainees could be transferred to other countries from GTMO only if 
``feasible'' and ``appropriate'' security measures could be instituted 
to mitigate the dangers posed by these very threatening individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why this legislation is needed.
  Since January, the Obama administration has sent 46 detainees from 
GTMO to other countries. In August alone, 15 detainees were 
transferred. I worry that whatever arrangements might exist in the 
receiving countries will be woefully insufficient to keep the danger at 
bay. I am concerned that these detainees will again threaten the United 
States or our partners, just as other detainees have done. I fear 
detainees are being hurriedly moved from GTMO in order to fulfill an 8-
year-old campaign promise to close GTMO.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sensible and sound response.
  Today, there are 61 detainees in GTMO. The Obama administration has 
made it clear that at least 20 of these detainees should be sent 
elsewhere.
  H.R. 5351 prevents any GTMO detainee transfers for the next several 
months. The bill prohibits GTMO transfers to the United States or to 
other countries until the National Defense Authorization Act for this 
fiscal year takes effect or until the new administration assumes 
office, whichever happens first. This means the new President will be 
able to consider anew the grave risks which GTMO transfers pose. It 
will also mean that the new administration will know how the provisions 
of a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act will govern its 
actions.
  The United States military notes that it is ``committed to ensuring 
detainees are kept in a safe, secure, humane environment'' at GTMO. It 
also reports that ``intelligence gained at GTMO has prevented terrorist 
attacks and saved lives.'' A pause in GTMO transfers prevents rash and 
sudden actions to empty GTMO on an arbitrary and self-imposed deadline.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I strongly support H.R. 5351, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Virginia described very well the process that the 
Obama administration put in place in 2009. It was a significant 
improvement.
  The real problem that we had with Guantanamo was, when it was 
originally conceived as a place to hold detainees under the law of war, 
there were, at one point, nearly 800 detainees there.
  A lot of them were brought there without much in the way of vetting 
or assurances that they were, in fact, threats. In fact, under the Bush 
administration, well over 500 of those detainees were released, and 
there really wasn't much of a process. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 
over 20 percent of those detainees did return to the battlefield and 
did present a threat to the country. There simply wasn't a process.
  So, as Mr. Forbes described quite well, in 2009, the Obama 
administration put in place a process. At the time, there were 242 
detainees remaining in Guantanamo Bay. The process they put in place 
was to go through every single one of them and say: Who are these 
people? What is their threat level? They evaluated all of them and put 
them into different categories. They determined that some were not a 
threat and could be released.
  Regrettably, something we don't like to talk about, as I sort of 
alluded to earlier, is that a number of these people were picked up 
erroneously, either with the wrong name or the wrong information, and 
we really didn't have any evidence on them, or the evidence we thought 
we had turned out to be wrong. A fair number of these detainees were 
being held really for no good reason, so they tried to determine who 
those were.
  Now, there are also some very, very bad people at Guantanamo Bay. As 
Mr. Forbes also indicated, the President reaffirmed our right under the 
law of war to hold those people, and I support that very strongly. But 
what the Obama administration has done to get that number down to 61 is 
they have transferred the ones that a board of defense, intelligence, 
security, and Justice Department experts had determined were not a 
threat to the United States and were transferable. The problem that 
came up was: Transferable,

[[Page 12739]]

but to where? Who would take these people?
  Then, there was the last provision that Mr. Forbes also mentioned. 
Wherever they were transferred to, the Obama administration wanted to 
make sure that there were some assurances from those countries that 
they would look after those folks, hold them securely, and make sure 
that they were not a threat.
  So that is what has got us down to the 61 number is the release of 
detainees that this board, again, of defense, intelligence, Justice 
Department, and security experts determined were not a threat to the 
United States and were transferable.
  Now, of that number, since 2009, that returned--at this point, I 
think just this morning, two more detainees were determined to have 
returned to the battlefield; for the most part, this is return to 
fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan--is still a number around 6 
percent of all folks that have been released from Guantanamo Bay, under 
the Obama administration, that have been deemed to have returned to the 
battlefield. The previous group, under the Bush administration, was 
somewhere between 20 and 30 percent, depending on how it was 
calculated. So, they have done a very careful job of who should be 
vetted and where they should be transferred to.
  Of the 61 that are left, there are 20 that are currently eligible for 
transfer. There are 10 in the military commission system and 31 others 
that are reserved for continued law of war detention.
  The Obama administration is of the opinion that there are only 20 of 
the remaining 61 that are potentially transferable. They have been 
vetted through this very lengthy process that I have described that has 
been successful to the point that, again, only 6 percent have been 
deemed to have returned to the battlefield.
  What this bill would do is stop this President, frankly, from being 
President on this issue for the last however many months there are left 
in his administration. If, in fact, we can find secure places to 
transfer these 20, then it is the right thing to do, and the President 
ought to be allowed to do it. There is no reason to stop him from doing 
it.
  Now, the argument that you will hear repeatedly from the other side 
is: we can't take the chance. Yes, they have been vetted; yes, the 
percentage is low; but this person might do something bad if we release 
them.
  I would suggest that that turns the American justice system on its 
head. There are a whole lot of people walking the streets in this 
country who might do something bad. You do all kinds of analyses to 
determine that they might. Maybe we should lock them up, no trial, no 
process, no nothing, and say: look, better safe than sorry. But that is 
not the way we do things.
  Now, we do have a process here. And there are some that, under the 
law of war, are determined to be dangerous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Once we have determined that they are not a threat, under our 
opinion, and are transferable, to say, look, sorry, we are just going 
to hold you because we want to, is really a violation of the U.S. 
Constitution and due process of law.
  To hold this process up even for a few months is not necessary. As I 
said, we are talking about 20 people that the Obama administration is 
trying to determine if they can find a safe place to send them.
  This is not about closing Guantanamo. I strongly support closing 
Guantanamo. I will skip that argument for the purpose of this debate. 
That is not going to happen. We have had votes on the House floor. 
There is not support in Congress for it. There is a prohibition in law 
that continues to be in law on transferring any of those detainees to 
the United States or spending any money to detain them in the United 
States. So it is not going to happen.
  The question really is about the 20 people who have been deemed not 
to be security threats to the U.S., who have been deemed to be 
transferable, and whether or not we can transfer them. This bill would 
say ``no'' and would hold those 20 people for the next 5 or 6 months, 
regardless of the evidence and regardless of the vetting process.
  Now, it is possible these 20 people won't be transferred, that we 
won't find a country for them, but there is no reason to strip the 
President of his lawful authority to do that.
  Again, I want to emphasize that the Obama administration has gone 
through a careful vetting process, unlike the Bush administration, so I 
don't think we should interfere with that vetting process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague who has done such a 
great job in working this piece of legislation.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express strong support 
for my bill, H.R. 5351, which would prohibit the transfer of any 
individual detained at Guantanamo Bay.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, the news broke that two more former GTMO 
detainees have rejoined militant groups. This is just the latest case 
of GTMO detainees being released, only to return to the fight. In fact, 
the President's own Director of National Intelligence reports 30 
percent of former detainees are known or suspected to have reengaged in 
terrorist activities. Yet, the President continues to release more and 
more detainees.
  When President Obama came to office, there were 240 detainees at 
GTMO. The number is now down to 61, after the most recent and largest 
ever transfer last month. Another 20 have been cleared for transfer.
  When Hoosiers in my district hear these numbers, they worry that 
these transfers are leaving our Nation open to new vulnerabilities and 
will make Americans less safe. I could not agree more.
  While I wish we didn't have to stand here debating this bill, it is 
an unfortunate reality that our President remains willing to continue 
putting a misguided campaign promise ahead of the national security.
  Why else would detainees, who were once deemed too dangerous to 
transfer by President Obama's own GTMO task force, have been released 
to begin with?
  That is what happened with 8 of the detainees who were part of the 
largest-ever transfer of GTMO detainees last month. The task force's 
recommendation was reversed. These dangerous detainees were 
redesignated as safe for transfer, and they were sent to the United 
Arab Emirates.
  With all this in mind, it was, sadly, no surprise when, in March of 
this year, Mr. Paul Lewis, the President's Special Envoy for Guantanamo 
Closure, testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that 
``Americans have died because of GTMO detainees.''
  What else will it take for the President to change course on this 
flawed campaign promise?
  As a recently released, unclassified report on Guantanamo detainees 
highlighted, the individuals remaining at GTMO today represent truly 
the worst of the worst of the post-9/11 era. These are hardened 
terrorists. These are al Qaeda bomb makers, bodyguards, plotters, and 
recruiters. Among them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 
September 11 attacks. Americans are safer with these dangerous 
detainees securely locked up.

                              {time}  0930

  I have been to GTMO. I have seen our military, the greatest fighting 
force the world has ever seen, standing guard to protect the American 
people from those who would do us harm. I know the GTMO facility is the 
safest, most secure place for these detainees.
  But this isn't just about the terrorists themselves. There are also 
significant concerns about the capacity and the capabilities of the 
countries receiving these transfers and the adequacy and transparency 
of the agreements being made by their governments.
  Take, for example, the recent case of a former detainee who was 
released to Uruguay, but sparked an international

[[Page 12740]]

manhunt after he disappeared shortly before the Rio Summer Olympics; or 
the former detainee who was transferred to Sudan, a state sponsor of 
terrorism, and reappeared in Yemen as a leader of the al Qaeda 
affiliate there.
  It is clear these individuals desire to return to the battlefield, 
and that the countries receiving them may not have adequate resources 
to effectively track and monitor their whereabouts and activities.
  Unfortunately, despite repeated inquiries of the administration, we, 
as Members of Congress, still don't know much about the commitments our 
government has or gets from these countries. We don't know what, if 
any, penalties have been levied against countries that lose track of 
our former detainees.
  Transparency is long overdue. That is why I authored this language in 
this year's National Defense Authorization budget that would require 
complete written agreements for any transfers between countries to be 
shared with the appropriate congressional oversight committees.
  To those who may have concerns about my bill, I want to be clear what 
this legislation does and does not do. First and foremost, this 
legislation would not enact a permanent, lasting ban. What it does do 
is halt transfers until either this year's NDAA is signed into law or 
until President Obama leaves office on January 20, 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, as recently as last week, we heard the President say 
that he was ``not ready to concede'' that he cannot close GTMO before 
leaving office. The week before, we heard a similar message from Vice 
President Biden.
  With President Obama's time in office winding down, accelerating 
transfers to achieve a campaign promise puts Americans at risk.
  I am grateful to stand here with the national security leaders in 
this House on this bill, and to remind the American people that our 
first priority is the safety and security of our fellow Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that would block all 
transfers out of Guantanamo for the remainder of the year or until the 
end of the President's current term.
  This bill would, for the first time ever, impose a complete ban on 
all transfers out of Guantanamo. Not only would the bill block all 
transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, even for 
purposes of prosecution in Federal court, but it would also ban the 
resettlement or repatriation of detainees cleared by the United States 
for transfer to foreign countries.
  The bill would be effective until the earlier of January 21, 2017, or 
the effective date of the next National Defense Authorization Act.
  To quote the ACLU: ``This bill violates the bedrock constitutional 
prohibition on Congress passing any legislation that violates the 
Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause.''
  In effect, it finds all the inmates at Guantanamo guilty of something 
unspecified, without trial, and sentences them to life without parole. 
That is what this bill does, along with the other series of bills. But 
by saying you can't transfer anybody anywhere, you are saying they must 
remain there indefinitely whether they have been tried or not, whether 
they have been found guilty or not, whether our own experts think they 
are a threat to the United States or not. Even if we find that someone 
is factually not guilty of any act of terrorism or anything else and we 
have no right to hold them, we still cannot release them.
  By what right do we claim such a power? Since when is it okay for 
Members of Congress to put people in jail and keep them there who are 
not guilty of anything?
  How can an American legislative body pass a provision that says we 
will hold someone in jail forever not only without trial, but even if 
we have determined that he is innocent of everything?
  That is the basic argument here. This bill, the idea that we will 
keep people in jail forever without their having been found guilty of 
anything, without their having been tried, it makes a mockery of the 
American Constitution. It makes a mockery of all our pretenses to stand 
for liberty.
  It makes a mockery of habeas corpus. This would even say that if 
someone were granted a writ of habeas corpus, he could not be released 
even if a Court granted him a writ of habeas corpus. Plainly 
unconstitutional, not to mention immoral.
  I will say one other thing on a completely different level. This 
expires either when we pass the next NDAA or when the next President 
takes office. It says, in effect, this President is not really our 
President, for all practical purposes, for every practical purpose. He 
was elected by the American people 4 years ago, but we don't like him, 
so we are going to say he can't do certain things that his successor 
can do. We are going to put something in writing only for this 
President.
  Now, if this said this expires when the next NDAA is passed or it 
expires a year from now or whenever, that would be one thing. But this 
says the NDAA or when the next President takes office. In other words, 
very much like the Senate is doing with Judge Garland. We don't trust 
the President. Maybe we don't. That is a political decision, but it is 
not a right decision.
  We don't trust the President to act as President. We repudiate the 
judgment the American people made in the last election. We say that, 
for certain purposes, his term has expired and we will wait for the 
next President.
  That also is pernicious and against our constitutional values. On 
every level, this bill is probably unconstitutional and certainly 
immoral, and I oppose it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank Chairman Randy Forbes.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected, one of the first persons to 
greet me was my classmate of 2001, Chairman Randy Forbes. From the 
beginning, I saw what a gentleman he was, what a dedicated Member of 
Congress he has been. I so appreciate his leadership on behalf of 
national defense, promoting peace through strength.
  Additionally, he and his wife, Shirley, are stalwart Christians, 
promoting religious freedom successfully around the world, making a 
difference.
  I am grateful to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 5351, prohibiting 
the transfer of Guantanamo detainees. Introduced by Congresswoman 
Jackie Walorski, this further protects American families by halting the 
transfer of any detainee to any location.
  During the August recess, sadly, the administration released 15 more 
dangerous detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners that are being 
held there--and I have been to Guantanamo Bay twice, I know the 
professionalism of the American military--these are the co-conspirators 
of Osama Bin Laden, trained mass murderers. By holding them there, we 
show our resolve and that we have not forgotten the mass murderous 
attacks of September 11.
  The President's reckless release of detainees puts American 
servicemembers and families at risk. The deterrence of incarceration 
has never been more important.
  We, today, have a greater spread of terrorist safe havens than in the 
history of the world. From Algeria in North Africa, through the Middle 
East, through South Asia, all the way to Indonesia and the Philippines, 
these safe havens of Islamic terrorists are going to receive persons to 
come and be reinforcements.
  In March, the Director of National Intelligence reported that at 
least 116 detainees, nearly a third, released from Guantanamo have 
returned to the battlefield. What we have further is Reuters reports 
that more have returned to the battlefield to threaten and kill 
American families.
  I appreciate the leadership of Congresswoman Walorski of Indiana, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote in support.

[[Page 12741]]


  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  In the prime sponsor of this bill's remarks, there are a whole lot of 
sort of half-truths and assumptions that got jammed together that don't 
actually make sense and are not actually the facts that are before us 
to paint a very dark picture that isn't what we are dealing with. Let 
me just run through those.
  We heard that 30 percent of the people have returned to the 
battlefield or are suspected to have returned to the battlefield. That 
30 percent figure relies, again, on the folks that were released before 
the Obama administration when, again, quite frankly, people were picked 
up in a very haphazard manner and released in a very haphazard manner.
  Since 2009, since the Obama administration did the vetting process of 
all of these people, the actual rate of people who have been deemed to 
have returned to the battlefield, even with the two that were counted 
this morning, is 5.6 percent. So when you hear 30 percent--oh my gosh, 
30 percent of these people are returning to the battlefield; how can we 
release them--that is not the number. Okay?
  Now, you can argue about the 5.6 if you want, but let's at least get 
the number right. Since the Obama administration did the proper vetting 
process, the number is 5.6 percent to have been confirmed to have 
returned to the battlefield, including the two that were added this 
morning.
  It is also worth noting that when we say the ones that are left are 
the worst of the worst, there is truth in that. Obviously, Khalid 
Sheikh Mohammed would fall right up at the top of that; and 41 of the 
folks who are there do fall into that category of the worst of the 
worst. None of those 41 have been cleared for transfer.
  What we are talking about is the 20 who have been cleared for 
transfer, and the President--those are the people that President Obama 
has released and repatriated to other countries over the course of the 
last 7 years, are people who have been cleared for transfer; with one 
exception, which I am sure will come up at some point, and that was in 
the prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl. And we can relitigate that 
argument as well, but that has really got nothing to do with what is 
going on here.
  There, the President made a decision to transfer five people that had 
not been cleared for transfer in exchange for our captured member of 
the military. So except for that situation, all of these people who 
have been released have been vetted and cleared.
  Lastly, I just want to--well, not lastly, actually two more things. 
The most disturbing thing that was said was that these people who have 
been released are people who, at one time, were suspected of being 
dangerous, and that is true. They wouldn't have been there if they 
weren't suspected of being dangerous. But it turns out in these cases 
we were wrong. And you can go back through the history of post-9/11, 
you can find a number of instances when we were wrong.
  I remember right after 9/11 there was a doctor in San Antonio who had 
done a whole bunch of suspicious things, and everybody was absolutely 
convinced that this guy was tied in with al Qaeda. He was held for an 
extended period of time, and then people looked into it and they said: 
Oops, sorry, we got the wrong guy. We are going to let you go.
  That happens, and I don't blame law enforcement in the least bit for 
that. It is a difficult job.
  In this case, when you are talking about terrorists, you should err 
on the side of caution. If you have probable cause, you should pick 
somebody up and you should be sure.
  But now what this side is saying, once you have been suspected, even 
if it turns out that you were completely wrong in that suspicion: 
Sorry, we are just going to lock you up for the rest of your life 
without due process or a possibility of trial.
  That is unbelievably unconstitutional and just flat wrong.
  Yes, these people were suspected. They wouldn't be in Guantanamo if 
they weren't. But what was determined was that, of those people who 
were suspected, a number of them turned out we were wrong. And of the 
ones that are left, there are 20 out of the 61 that are eligible for 
transfer.
  Now, again, finding the right country to send them to, it might not 
happen. All right. So no one is talking about releasing the worst of 
the worst. The President has made it clear those 41 are not 
transferrable.
  We are talking about the 20 that have been deemed to be 
transferrable. Just because you were suspected at one point, I would 
hate to think that we would have a country that says: If you are 
suspected of a crime, sorry, we are going to lock you up and that is 
it, even if evidence later shows that we were wrong.
  That is not the way we should do things in law enforcement.
  Lastly, we have heard that this is all about a campaign promise to 
close Guantanamo. Again, this has nothing to do with closing 
Guantanamo.
  Now, the President and the Vice President are reluctant to give up on 
what they think is the right policy, closing Guantanamo Bay. So until 
they leave office, they are not just going to say: We are not going to 
do it.
  They think it is important. Again, I won't relitigate that argument, 
but there are people who feel passionately that it is the right thing 
to do. But that is not what we are talking about doing here.
  We are talking about 20 people who have been deemed not to be a 
threat to the United States that we are, nonetheless, incarcerating, 
and the President is talking about transferring them.
  We are not talking about transferring the 41, not talking about 
closing Guantanamo. It is still in law that we can't close Guantanamo. 
So it is not about a campaign promise. It is about upholding the values 
in the Constitution of the United States of America that says that if 
we have you incarcerated and it turns out that our evidence was wrong 
and you are not guilty of what we thought you were guilty of or, in 
this case, not a threat to us in the way that we thought you were, then 
we should release you, not hold you.
  We are not a dictatorship. We are not a country like Saddam Hussein 
used to run, where he just locked people up because he wanted to. That 
is not who we should be.
  This bill takes away the ability of this President to transfer those 
20 people who have been clearly deemed transferrable by the Defense 
Department, the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department, 
Intelligence Community experts.
  They want to stop, as Mr. Nadler said, this President from being 
President. Now, they never wanted him to be President in the first 
place, and it is incredibly inconvenient that he got elected twice, 
from their perspective. But he is the President and he should have the 
authority to exercise the Office of the Presidency until January 20 of 
next year, when he is done.

                              {time}  0945

  This bill unfairly strips him of that right. Again, we are talking 
about 20 people who have been deemed to be transferable. So let's get 
the facts straight and then argue based on those facts. It is not 30 
percent; it is 5.6. We are not talking about releasing the worst of the 
worst. We are not talking about closing Guantanamo Bay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my friend and colleague.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank so much, first, my colleague 
Jackie Walorski for introducing this very important piece of 
legislation that I am proud to cosponsor, and secondly, Chairman 
Forbes. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on national defense, 
on faith, and so many other issues important to our country.
  This bill is crucial. It prevents the Obama administration from 
transferring any remaining detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention 
facility in the last months of his Presidency. Now, this is important 
because the administration seems determined to clear

[[Page 12742]]

the facility. In 2016, 46 detainees have been transferred. Last month 
alone, 15 terrorists were released. More are expected as Vice President 
Biden has stated that it is the President's intention to empty GTMO by 
the time he leaves office.
  This rush to close Guantanamo is dangerous, reckless, and 
shortsighted. Already we have learned that 30 percent of those who have 
been released have returned to the battlefield. American soldiers who 
fought so hard to take the enemy off the battlefield now have to face 
them again.
  But this release is beyond dangerous; it is an injustice. Let me 
share an example.
  In 2011, shortly after taking office, I received the gut-wrenching 
news that a young soldier from my district had lost his life in the war 
on terror in Afghanistan. Christopher Stark was a combat engineer 
serving one of the most dangerous missions of the war: clearing roads 
of IEDs so his unit could pass by safely. Day after day he saved 
others, but, ultimately, he wasn't able to save himself when an IED 
exploded.
  Christopher gave his life to save others. His country gained a hero; 
his mother lost a son. She has become my friend and is a hero in her 
own right as she bravely comes to terms with his sacrifice--relying on 
her faith to give her daily strength while accepting the burden and 
hallowed position of being a Gold Star mom.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. So you can imagine my dismay and consternation when I 
learned that, in his rush to fulfill campaign promises to close GTMO, 
the administration released a terrorist by the name of Obaidullah in 
the last round of detainee transfers. Who was he? He was part of an al 
Qaeda-associated improvised explosive device cell that targeted 
coalition forces in Afghanistan. He was captured by U.S. security 
forces during a raid in his compound, where they found 23 landmines as 
well as a notebook containing electronic and detonator schematics 
involving explosives and mines similar to the one that killed 
Christopher.
  Releasing Obaidullah was wrong. He was targeted for prosecution and 
his status was changed. American soldiers like Christopher Stark lost 
their lives due to his activities. We need to ensure our American 
soldiers stay safe and also that justice is served.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
make two quick points.
  The Obama administration is not determined to clear the facility 
before they leave office. They want to close the facility. But, again, 
those 41 that have been deemed dangerous, it is the Obama 
administration's position that they shouldn't be held in Guantanamo 
Bay, that they should be held in secure prisons in the United States, 
not to let them go.
  I think that is one of the most misleading things about this argument 
that is being made by the other side repeatedly that they simply want 
to let them all go. It is not their goal to empty GTMO before January 
20. It is their goal to still try to close the prison so that they can 
be held here in the U.S.
  Again, that is a separate argument, but I just want to make sure that 
it is clear it is not the goal of the administration to simply empty 
out the prison and send all 61 wherever. We are talking about 20 that 
have been deemed eligible for transfer.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), my friend and colleague.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my HASC colleague 
and friend, Jackie Walorski, for all of her efforts to prevent the 
transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and introducing H.R. 
5351, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  I stand here today as the Representative of the Army's 10th Mountain 
Division, resilient warriors who have been an integral force in the war 
on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11.
  As we all know, GTMO is comprised of some of the world's most heinous 
terrorists, and we have lost many servicemembers' lives in their 
pursuit. As the 10th Mountain Division and others continue to serve in 
harm's way, it is our duty to provide oversight and ensure the 
administration is held accountable before any American dies at the 
hands of a released detainee.
  Releasing these terrorists and closing GTMO is a true national 
security concern at home; therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand with 
our brave men and women in uniform and show them that their sacrifices 
have not gone to waste and vote today in support of H.R. 5351.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds 
before yielding to Mr. Nadler.
  I want to make clear; I represented Joint Base Lewis-McChord for 16 
years, until 2012, and wrote hundreds of sympathy cards to family 
members who lost loved ones from that base in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 
I will take the backseat to no one in terms of respecting what they 
did, how they fought, and what they sacrificed, making sure that we do 
everything we can to protect them and give them the tools they need to 
protect our country and protect themselves. I thank the Republicans for 
working in a bipartisan manner on that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the people of 
Guantanamo are the worst of the worst, that they are very dangerous, 
and that their release would pose a threat to the United States. Some 
are, it is true. Some are probably the worst of the worst, but some 
aren't. Some are people who were picked up by mistake. Some are people 
who were sold for a bounty.
  If you go into a wild place like Afghanistan and you let the word out 
that we will pay $5,000 for a terrorist and the McCoys are fighting the 
Hatfields, the McCoys will turn in a Hatfield and say that he is a 
terrorist. Some of that happened.
  It is our job not to keep everybody in jail for life but to figure 
out who is who: who is the worst of the worst; who is innocent; who is 
there because of a mistake.
  Release those who are innocent; release those who do not pose a 
threat; and release those who didn't do anything. Simply getting up and 
repeating time after time on this floor that the people there are the 
worst of the worst doesn't make it true.
  What kind of a system of justice or anything else is it where you 
say: We are going to hold forever, with no trial, people who we have 
already determined to pose no threat to the United States, who we have 
already determined have done nothing wrong, but we are going to hold 
them in jail forever because some of them are bad people--no trial, no 
proceeding, hold them in jail forever?
  By what right would we do that? How do we appear to all the countries 
and to all the people that we are trying to appeal to, saying our way 
is the rule of law, go with our way, don't go with the Taliban, we are 
fair to people, they are not, and then we have people in jail forever 
with no hope of release, with no trial, no proceeding, nothing? That is 
what this bill is.
  This bill is un-American in the extreme. It is counterproductive 
because it gives the Taliban and everybody else the propaganda against 
us that we are a bunch of hypocrites, which we are if we pass bills 
like this, and we shouldn't pass it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Forbes for 
his leadership on this issue and for his distinguished career here in 
Congress. The gentleman certainly will be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, some issues just boil down to common sense. Despite the 
rhetoric of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there is no 
evidence of Good Samaritan sweet peas being kept at Guantanamo Bay.

[[Page 12743]]

  Common sense would tell you that it is a very bad idea to bring the 
world's worst criminals to America's shore. It is an equally bad idea 
to release them. That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 5351, a 
bill that would stop the transfer of individuals detained at the United 
States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  Last Sunday, our Nation recognized the 15th anniversary of the worst 
attack on U.S. soil, an attack where we lost nearly 3,000 American 
lives. That tragic event marked the beginning of a war against 
terrorists who espouse radical Islam. Since then, Guantanamo Bay has 
been instrumental in detaining enemy combatants engaged in that war.
  Today, there are 61 suspected terrorists remaining at GTMO. They are 
largely regarded as the worst of the worst. They are the folks that no 
other country would take--too dangerous to transfer, the most dangerous 
criminals in the world. But the President wants to release these 
terrorists or, worse yet, bring them to American soil, putting 
Americans at risk. That is a really bad idea, and we can't, in good 
conscience, let that happen. That is why we have had bipartisan support 
for keeping GTMO open in the past. There are simply not enough 
standards in place to make these transfers without endangering American 
lives.
  I am proud of the leadership of my colleague, Jackie Walorski, on 
this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to stop any reckless 
transfers of terrorists to American soil. Not one American life is 
worth the risk.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
say, regrettably, the previous gentleman is simply wrong. He said that 
America would not arrest as a terrorist someone who turned out not to 
be a terrorist. The facts are simply clear that that is just not the 
case. It is not that we are doing anything malicious. It is a 
complicated and difficult job. As Mr. Nadler pointed out, there is a 
lot to sort out.
  It is not even in dispute that we have arrested and incarcerated 
people because we thought they were terrorists and found out that we 
were wrong. That is not debated. A number of them have been released.
  So to say that, well, if we arrested them and put them in there, they 
must be bad and they can't be sent out is precisely what is wrong with 
the thinking behind this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am 
prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and 
I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the most interesting thing about this debate is that, as 
we have moved on from speaker to speaker, the proponents of this 
legislation keep saying the same things over and over again that simply 
are not true. Again, I just want to close by saying I wish we could 
debate this on the actual facts, on what is in front of us.
  There certainly is an argument to be made that we should err on the 
side of just locking them up no matter what. I think that is the wrong 
argument. I think Mr. Nadler has very clearly articulated why, as a 
country, we shouldn't do that, we shouldn't pick people up and say, if 
there is any possibility we might be wrong, we are just going to take 
away your freedom and lock you up without due process. It is a 
violation of the fundamental principles of our country. We could at 
least have that debate.
  But we keep hearing a number of things that simply are not correct. 
Number one, this is just the President trying to fulfill a campaign 
promise to close down Guantanamo Bay and get everybody out of there 
before he leaves office. That is completely wrong. There are 41 people 
at Guantanamo Bay who this administration has said under no 
circumstances are they transferable. Those are the worst of the worst, 
and they are not talking about transferring them. What we are talking 
about are the 20 people who have been deemed transferable.
  Then we have the argument, well, gosh, they wouldn't be in there if 
they hadn't done something wrong. As we all know, law enforcement 
occasionally makes mistakes. So that is not correct either. These 20 
people have been examined and deemed to be transferable, and we should 
not hold them because the 41 other people who happen to be there are 
really bad people. That is not, again, according to the way that we 
should do justice in our country.
  So this is not about closing Guantanamo. We have had that debate 
numerous times, and I have lost that debate on the House floor. I 
understand that. This is about the Obama administration doing what the 
Bush administration should have done in the first place, which was to 
be a lot more careful about whom you put in there; and then once they 
are in there, examine it, make sure you actually have sufficient 
evidence and these are people you need to hold.
  That is what the Obama administration did in 2009 with the 242 
inmates who were being detained at Guantanamo. They determined that 
some of them were there incorrectly and were transferable. That is what 
we are talking about.

                              {time}  1000

  This bill would stop that. This bill would say basically that 
President Obama is not actually President in this area for the rest of 
his term. That is wrong. He got elected and he ought to be able to make 
those decisions.
  I will also say in this area, he has proven to be vastly more careful 
than his predecessor. Again, the recidivism rate of those released in 
2009 is 5.6 percent. Prior to that, that number was closer to 30. So a 
process was put in place that actually did work, and we ought to 
respect that process and not restrict the President's ability to 
basically do justice.
  Finally, I just want to say, as has been noted a couple of times, Mr. 
Forbes will be leaving our committee. I have enjoyed serving with him 
during my time. He is--as Stephen Colbert would say--a worthy opponent, 
and I enjoy that. We have had a lot of great debates on the committee. 
I am very, very sorry to see him go. I thank him also for his service. 
We have worked in a very bipartisan fashion on a number of issues and 
upheld, I think very, very well, the bipartisan tradition of the House 
Armed Services Committee. So I have enjoyed serving with him. I 
appreciate that service. I wish him the best of luck in the future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say I have enormous respect for 
the ranking member, and he has done an admirable job today, as he 
always does, of defending the President and the President's actions in 
Guantanamo Bay.
  Unfortunately, the President's actions in Guantanamo Bay have not 
been quite as admirable. We have heard throughout the discussion today 
several catchphrases. We have heard that we wanted to discuss what was 
actually true. We wanted to discuss what the facts actually were. We 
talked about this incredible vetting process this administration had. 
We talked about the need to have a process and to have that process 
work before they took action. We have heard the phrase, We don't want 
to turn the American justice system on its ears. And we have also heard 
that, We don't want to hold up the process for a few months because 
that could be problematic.
  Mr. Speaker, let me try to take us back a little bit and put some 
facts around this whole debate as to why we got here in the first 
place. The reality of this situation is that this administration, 
before they ever took office, before the President ever raised his hand 
and took the oath, before any cabinet members were appointed, or before 
anybody had been placed in his administration, this President and this 
Vice President made a commitment to

[[Page 12744]]

close Guantanamo Bay before they ever went down there and actually 
investigated and looked at what was there.
  The other situation is that when they made that promise, they had 
made no vetting process. They had no process in place.
  The other fact, Mr. Speaker, is that when this President raised that 
hand and took that oath, the former administration that my good friend, 
the ranking member, has talked about how terrible they were, they had a 
prosecutor and a team of prosecutors who were prosecuting some of the 
worst terrorists this country had ever seen. Most Americans don't know 
the names of the people in Guantanamo Bay, but they know we had co-
conspirators in
9/11 who were sitting down there, and that former administration had a 
prosecutorial team who had gone through months after months after 
months with a stack of motions this high, and that prosecutor said to 
anyone who would go down there, including me and the former chairman of 
the committee, Ike Skelton, that he would have had guilty verdicts or 
guilty pleas by those co-conspirators within 6 months.
  When this administration came in with their great vetting and their 
great process without talking to that prosecutor, without looking at 
that at all, he disbanded that entire prosecution, terminated that 
prosecutor, terminated that entire team. And, to this day, no one on 
that side of the aisle can even tell us when they are going to have 
convictions on those conspirators of the worst terrorists this country 
has ever seen.
  When I hear the President and the Vice President stand up and say, We 
haven't given up on the promise to close Guantanamo Bay, I listen and I 
listen and I listen to deafness for the President or the Vice President 
to say, We haven't given up on getting convictions of the worst 
terrorists in the United States.
  So when I look at Guantanamo Bay and I hear, We are not really going 
to close it, forget what the President is saying, forget what the Vice 
President is saying, they don't really mean they want to close 
Guantanamo Bay. All they want to do is bring those terrorists to the 
United States.
  We have stood on this floor and fought that for 8 years, and here is 
the reason. Because let me ask which of you want those terrorists 
brought to your community with every single act of terrorism we are 
seeing now and the repercussions of that? Because the moment you put 
them in your community in any jail or any prison, it is not a matter of 
whether we can hold them there, but you have just put a target on every 
school, every business, every mall in that community. When you talk 
about justice and you talk about fairness, we just believe that is 
wrong.
  So when you talk about just giving a little more time to the 
President for a few months, doesn't it make a little bit of sense that 
if this administration was given the time to come in and stop the 
prosecution of the worst terrorists the United States has ever seen, 
that maybe, just maybe we ought to have a temporary hold and let the 
next President, whoever that President might be, have a few months to 
determine before we release these terrorists whether or not they want 
to prosecute them and they really want to bring them to a conviction 
instead of just talking about it for 8 years?
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, with this. Years ago, when I stood on this 
floor on one of the first motions we had, it was a motion to recommit 
for the defense authorization bill to stop this administration from 
bringing these detainees to the United States. My friend and chairman 
on the other side of the aisle, Ike Skelton, stood on the floor right 
where my good friend, Mr. Smith, is sitting today, and Mr. Skelton said 
this: When it comes to terrorism, there shouldn't be any light between 
the Republicans and the Democrats. And he supported that motion not to 
bring those terrorists to the United States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today, after all of the rhetoric, it is a pretty 
simple deal, prosecute them if you want to prosecute them, but don't 
fulfill some campaign promise of shutting down Guantanamo Bay and the 
impact that could have on these terrorists.
  And I would say, as my good friend, Ike Skelton, said today, there 
shouldn't be any light between Republicans and Democrats when it comes 
to terrorists, but there certainly shouldn't be any light in with any 
Member of this Congress when it comes to defending and protecting the 
United States from these terrorists who have one goal in mind, and that 
is to kill Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 174, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 520]

                               YEAS--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy

[[Page 12745]]


     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brown (FL)
     Costa
     DesJarlais
     Ellmers (NC)
     Fincher
     Hardy
     Johnson, Sam
     Labrador
     Palazzo
     Pitts
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (VA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1035

  Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520 I was present on the 
House Floor and used my voting card to register a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 
5351, To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at United 
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Due to a malfunction in the 
voting device, my ``yes'' vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________