Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act Of 2006

By: Tom Cole
By: Tom Cole
Date: Sept. 27, 2006
Location: Washington, DC


PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6166, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2006)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1042 and ask for its immediate consideration

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The rule provides 2 hours of debate, with 80 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Additionally, it provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying bicameral compromise legislation. This critical legislation ensures that we align the procedural protections for captured terrorists with our Constitution. In doing so, we are extending unprecedented legal and procedural protections to enemies who provide no protections to their captives and victims, and who have neither signed nor operate by the Geneva Convention.

To further ensure American Security and to ensure that terrorist detainees are not released to once again wreak havoc, it is necessary to move this legislation and develop a clear set of standards for military commissions.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, time is of the essence in moving forward with this legislation. These commissions will provide an important tool for our servicemen and women in obtaining operationally sensitive information from terrorists captured on the battlefield. However, the reform of the tribunal system to ensure certain procedural rights for these terrorists will also provide an impetus and an opportunity for those currently in our detainee system to cooperate more fully.

Mr. Speaker, as I know you are aware, the underlying legislation was developed after intense negotiations between both the legislative and executive branches of government. Furthermore, its development has been supported by senior Members of both parties and has largely received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Indeed, I predict once the legislation is actually presented, it will be passed by a strong bipartisan majority in this House.

Indeed, when an earlier, stronger and more restrictive version of this same bill moved through the House Armed Services Committee, it passed by a vote of 52-8, with one member voting present. This strong bipartisan majority on the primary committee of expertise and jurisdiction should be taken as a sign of its importance and the support for moving forward with the prosecution of those terrorists who, if set free, would resume killing American civilians and our servicemen and women as a matter of course and a tactic of terror.

Mr. Speaker, today we may well hear several concerns about the way in which the bill was brought forward to the floor. As we all know, when you can't win a debate on the merits of a piece of legislation, process attacks are the best way of slowing down and obstructing progress of that legislation. But the fact remains that within the last 2 weeks, both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee passed legislation even stronger than the legislation we are voting on today. Since then, bicameral negotiations have resulted in even more modifications to the underlying legislation ensuring even more rights for the terrorists accused of war crimes. But, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. We must move this legislation to the President's desk. It does much to enhance America's security and to create an equitable system for prosecuting terrorists captured on the battlefield.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to speak to what protections the underlying legislation provides to those who would like to kill Americans. It provides: The right to counsel, provided by the government at trial throughout the appellate process; an impartial military judge; a presumption of innocence; a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to be informed of the charges against the accused as soon as practicable; the right to service of charges sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare a defense; the right to reasonable continuances; the right to peremptory challenge against members of the commission and challenges for cause against members of the commission and the military judge; witnesses must testify under oath; judges, counsel, and members of the military commission must take an oath; a right to enter a plea of not guilty; the right to obtain witnesses and other evidence; the right to exculpatory evidence as soon as practicable; the right to be present in court with the exceptions of certain classified evidence involving national security, preservation of safety or preventing disruption of proceedings; the right to a public trial except for national security issues or physical safety issues; the right to have any findings or sentences announced as soon as determined; the right against compulsory self-incrimination; the right against double jeopardy; the defense of a lack of mental responsibility; prohibitions against unlawful command influence toward members of the commission, counsel, or military judges; it requires a two-thirds vote of members for conviction, three-fourths vote required for sentences of life or over 10 years, and unanimous verdict required for the death penalty; it requires a verbatim authenticated record of the trial; cruel or unusual punishments are prohibited; treatment and discipline during the confinement the same as afforded to prisoners in U.S. domestic courts; the right to review the full factual record by the convening authority; and the right to at least two appeals, including a Federal article 3 appellate appeal.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, all these protections that we are willing to provide terrorists are the very same protections that they ignore when beating, mutilating, and killing our civilians and servicemen. These terrorists have no respect for the rule of law. They are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They do not fight in uniforms, and they kill innocent civilians of all faiths and all nationalities routinely, yet we are willing to grant to them substantive legal protections that I honestly believe go beyond the actual requirements of the Geneva Convention.

With that said, I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just quickly want to note, I am very proud of my country. I am proud that we extend protections to our adversaries that they do not extend to us. I am proud that in the few cases where there are transgressions, those are vigorously prosecuted and exposed by this country. So I have great pride in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say quickly for the record I think we are operating by the Golden Rule. I wish our opponents were. I wish they extended to American soldiers the same rights that they are given under this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, my fellow Rules Committee member, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today in closing, I want to again draw the attention of Members to the strength of the underlying bicameral compromise legislation, H.R. 6166. We have had a vigorous and good debate on the rule which I believe will help convince the House to support this vital measure.

I honestly believe when Members sit back and consider the underlying legislation carefully, they know we must move forward and pass both the rule and the bill. This is not an issue that we can take lightly, and we must act to enhance and secure America's security by providing the proper legal tools for our forces.

I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have spoken against this measure are very sincere and are very honorable in their intentions. But I want to conclude by adding a personal perspective on this particular issue. I had an uncle who served in the United States Navy during the Second World War.

He was captured in the Philippines in 1942, did the Bataan Death March, served throughout the war, first in the Philippines and then in the mainland of Japan as a prisoner of war.

During that process, he suffered enormous abuse. The first speech I gave on the floor of this House when I was privileged to serve was in support of a resolution that was presented in a bipartisan fashion that we would hold the then-Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein accountable for their treatment of any American POWs that might fall into their hands.

And, frankly, when we had the discussion on the Armed Services Committee about Abu Ghraib, I was probably as tough as anybody certainly on my side of the aisle in pointing out where I thought we had had inconsistencies, shortcomings and failures, and that those needed to be corrected.

But I have also had the opportunity, serving in this body, to go to Guantanamo and to talk to our interrogators and talk to our guards and talk to them about the nature of the enemy with which we deal. I need to remind my good friends, we are not dealing with criminals. We are dealing with terrorists.

We are not dealing with people who have broken our law, we are dealing with people that want to kill our citizens. We are dealing with an enemy that is very unlike any we have confronted before in the history of our country.

These are not uniformed combatants in the service of a foreign country; these terrorists are not uniformed; they are not under the supervision of legitimate governments; they do not recognize the Geneva Convention; they do not extend to the prisoners that they take of all faiths, of all nationalities, any rights, any privileges, any protections whatsoever.

We can be enormously proud as Americans that we have not stooped to that standard, that this legislation has been carefully crafted and negotiated, ensures the rights, ensures protections, sets up standards. And I have no doubt that our courts, our military, our judicial system, our legal system, will hold anybody who violates those rights to very high standards, as indeed we have done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good rule and a very good bill. It offers us the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, which, as the chairman of the Rules Committee pointed out earlier, we have heard a great deal about this morning, the need for up and down votes and clarity. We have got that here.

Mr. Speaker, I predict at the end of the day we will have an exceptionally strong bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation--and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/

arrow_upward