Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill. This is a debate about whether we are willing to preserve the fundamental protections our Nation has fought for centuries to maintain.

As written, the underlying bill rejects these essential protections in favor of vague assurances and provisions open to interpretation. The potential erosion of our legal safeguards is a serious matter. That is why several members of our armed services raised these concerns when they testified to Congress several weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, certain rights are considered so fundamental to our Nation and to our Constitution that they cannot be sacrificed. The right of every American to have his or her day in court is one such right.

But a number of law experts, including Martin Lederman, who worked at the Department of Justice for both President Clinton and President Bush, believe that this legislation would put that right in jeopardy. As written, this legislation could be used by the President as evidence of congressional agreement of a number of his legal assertions. That includes his assertion that holding an American citizen indefinitely without access to a lawyer is legal.

From my family's personal experience, I know something about what can happen to the rights of Americans when the executive branch overreaches in a time of war.

Restricting the legal rights of our citizens is something which, if done at all, must be done carefully and with a proper balancing of concerns. I know that Members of both Chambers tried to meet that standard with the administration on this legislation, but this proposal fails to achieve that balance. For that reason alone, we should reject this bill.

I am also concerned because the history of this legislation fits a pattern we have seen before, one in which officials assert expanded powers while ignoring their career professionals in the process.

A few weeks ago, Congress heard from a long line of generals and judge advocates general. Their collective testimony outlined a swift, tough approach to these tribunals that protected our troops, and it did so while preserving our moral authority in the world. This bill disregards their testimony and their expertise.

They argued forcefully for detainees to see the evidence presented against them, with some adjustment for classified evidence. They stated that evidence obtained through torture should not be permitted, not only because it is morally offensive but also because it is inherently untrustworthy. They clearly reiterated their position that judicial review must be preserved.

And, above all, they argued strenuously that any legislation must affirm the United States' commitment to the Geneva Conventions. They believe this because they know, better than anyone, that these safeguards protect our troops fighting on battlefields around the globe.

Unfortunately, Congress did not listen to these experts in military law. Instead, the bill made in order under this closed rule would permit evidence obtained through torture in some cases.

The legislation does include a list of certain grave breaches of the law. Beyond those, however, it gives the President the authority to determine what is and what isn't torture as long as he publishes it in the Federal Register first.

These provisions undermine our Nation's moral authority, and, once given away, it will be that much harder to earn back.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is vague when it should be specific; it is casual with regards to important legal protections when it should be vigilant; and it is a fundamentally flawed approach to prosecuting terrorists.

I urge all Members to reject this rule and to vote against the underlying bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/