House Report 111-221 - REQUESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING DETAINEES AND FOREIGN PERSONS SUSPECTED OF TERRORISM

[House Report 111-221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress } { Report
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 111-221 _______________________________________________________________________

REQUESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THAT THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN
THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING
DETAINEES AND FOREIGN PERSONS SUSPECTED OF TERRORISM

__________

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. RES. 602

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

July 23, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed

----------

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

79-008 WASHINGTON : 2009

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eleventh Congress

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ADAM SMITH, Washington J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey ROB BISHOP, Utah
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DUNCAN HUNTER, California
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
GLENN NYE, Virginia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma

Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Purpose and Background........................................... 1
Legislative History.............................................. 2
Communications with the Executive Branch......................... 2
Committee Position............................................... 4
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 4
Compliance with House Rule XXI................................... 4
Oversight Findings............................................... 5
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 5
Record Vote...................................................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 5
Additional and Dissenting Views.................................. 5
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-221

======================================================================

_______

July 23, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed

_______

Mr. Skelton, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 602]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 602) requesting that the President and
directing that the Secretary of Defense transmit to the House
of Representatives all information in their possession relating
to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign
persons suspected of terrorism, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the resolution be agreed to.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

That the House of Representatives requests the President, and directs
the Secretary of Defense, to transmit to the House of Representatives,
not later than the later of the date that is 90 days after the date of
the adoption of this Resolution or December 31, 2009, a report on how
the reading of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) to
individuals detained by the United States in Afghanistan may affect--
(1) the rules of engagement of the Armed Forces deployed in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom;
(2) post-capture interrogations and intelligence-gathering
activities conducted as part of Operation Enduring Freedom;
(3) the overall counterinsurgency strategy and objectives of
the United States for Operation Enduring Freedom;
(4) United States military operations and objectives in
Afghanistan; and
(5) potential risks to members of the Armed Forces operating
in Afghanistan.

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2009, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced
House Resolution 602, a resolution of inquiry. The resolution
requests the President, and directs the Secretary of Defense,
to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14
days after the date of adoption of the resolution, copies of
any portions of all documents, records, and communications in
their possession referring or relating to the notification of
rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by the
Department of Justice, including all component agencies, to
foreign persons, captured in Afghanistan, who are suspected of
terrorism and detainees in the custody of the Armed Forces of
the United States in Afghanistan.
Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides for a committee to report on a
qualifying resolution of inquiry, such as House Resolution 602,
within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge
the committee is in order. House Resolution 602 was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services on May 21, 2009.
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is one of the means by which the House may request
information from the head of one of the executive departments.
It is a simple resolution making a demand of the head of an
executive department to furnish the House of Representatives
with specific information in the possession of the executive
branch. It is not used to request opinions or to require an
investigation on a subject.
On July 21, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services took up
House Resolution 602 for the purpose of reporting a
recommendation to the House. House Resolution 602 was amended
to require that the Secretary of Defense submit a plan, by
December 31, 2009, or three months after the adoption of the
resolution, whichever comes later, on the impact of giving
Miranda warnings to detainees overseas has on five factors.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

House Resolution 602 was introduced on June 26, 2009, and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On July 21, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a
mark-up session to consider House Resolution 602, as
introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to
be reported House Resolution 602, as amended, to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a voice vote.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to correct a serious
misimpression that has arisen in recent weeks, that the United
States military may be providing Miranda warnings to terrorist
suspects in Afghanistan. This is completely inaccurate.
The record should be clear: The essential mission of our
nation's military, in times of armed conflict, is to capture or
engage the enemy; it is not evidence collection or law
enforcement. Members of the U.S. military do not provide
Miranda warnings to those they capture.
Meanwhile, it has been the longstanding practice of the
U.S. government, spanning administrations of both parties, to
use all instruments of national power to defeat terrorist
extremists. This has included, and will continue to include,
the prosecution of some terrorists in Article III courts. In
that event, U.S. law enforcement personnel have, in a handful
of situations, been permitted to question detainees who are
potential prospects for prosecution, accompanied by Miranda
warnings. Such interviews, accompanied by Miranda warnings, are
permitted by the Department of Defense only after the
military's intelligence-gathering functions have been completed
with respect to that detainee. These types of interviews are
not given, and should not be given, if the military commanders
on the ground conclude that doing so will hinder our military
operations or intelligence-gathering efforts.
Though the instances of ``Mirandized'' interviews of U.S.
military detainees are few and far between, we oppose any
legislative effort to ban them altogether. Our commanders
themselves would say doing so is contrary to national security,
because it would limit the option to prosecute terrorists in
Article III courts, and jeopardize those cases that we do
prosecute. Our government must maintain all lawful options for
fighting international terrorism, not limit them.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
General Counsel.
------

Department of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon: I am writing
to correct some serious misinformation about the reading of
Miranda warnings to terrorist suspects in Afghanistan and to
oppose efforts to curtail the appropriate and limited use of
this practice as part of a coordinated, multifaceted strategy
to defeat terrorism.
It has been suggested that a new policy has been put into
effect to read Miranda warnings to captured terrorists on the
battlefield. This is untrue. It has been the longstanding
practice of the U.S. government, including administrations of
both parties, to use Miranda warnings in a very small number of
cases in which it is important to our national security to
ensure that statements made by terrorist suspects can be used
in a criminal prosecution.
The warnings are given in locations removed from the
battlefield, and only after the military's intelligence-
gathering and force protection needs have been met. The
decision as to whether or not to give a warning is made by
experienced career professionals in consultation with military
and intelligence officials. The warnings are never given if the
professionals conclude that doing so will hinder our
counterterrorism efforts.
Over the course of the last two decades, Mirandized
statements obtained from non-U.S. citizens detained overseas
have played a critical role in winning convictions and lengthy
sentences in terrorism cases. For example, in the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing case and the plot to bomb U.S. airlines,
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was sentenced to 240 years in prison and
Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah were sentenced to
life in prison. In the 1998 East African embassy bombing case,
Mohamen Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-`Owhali, Wadih El-
Hage and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were each sentenced to life in
prison. And in the 1985 case of the hijacking of Royal
Jordanian Flight 402, Fawaz Yunis was sentenced to 30 years
imprisonment.
In these and other cases, the use of Mirandized statements
has enabled the government to keep all options on the table,
thus helping to ensure that those who commit terrorist acts
against our citizens can be brought to justice and given
lengthy sentences, whether in federal courts or military
commissions.
Were Congress to prohibit use of Miranda warnings, the
government would be deprived of an important weapon against our
enemies. Our military, law enforcement, and intelligence
professionals must have access to all lawful instruments of
national power to protect the country and ensure that
terrorists are brought to justice. The judicious use of Miranda
warnings preserves the full range of options available for
dealing with terrorists. If Congress takes that option away,
there will be an increased risk that those who have done us
harm, who have killed Americans and would do so again, might go
free.
This is not about giving rights to terrorists. It is about
bringing them to justice. By ensuring that any statements they
make are admissible at trial, we help ensure that they will no
longer be a threat to American lives and American security.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.

COMMITTEE POSITION

On July 21, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, ordered to be reported House Resolution 602, as
amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a
voice vote.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee estimates the costs of
implementing the resolution would be minimal. The Congressional
Budget Office did not provide a cost estimate for the
resolution.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, House Resolution 602
contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or
9(f) of rule XXI.

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the committee, based on
oversight activities pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation does not include
any new spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for
any increase or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures.
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the bill does not authorize
specific program funding.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no unfunded federal
intergovernmental mandates.

RECORD VOTE

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, there were no record votes taken
with respect to the committee's consideration of House
Resolution 602.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an elaboration or description of how
the reported bill proposes to repeal or amend a statute or part
thereof. There were no changes in existing law made by House
Resolution 602, as reported.

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

Clause 3(a) of rule XIII requires that the report include
all supplemental, minority, or additional views that have been
submitted. None have been submitted by the time of the filing
of the report.