Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of resolutions reported by the Rules Committee on the same day. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII and applies a special waiver to any resolutions reported this legislative day. Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance for the House to pass this rule and move the debate along so that important legislation may be considered before the House adjourns. Legislation that may be considered under this same-day rule may include the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and the Port Security Act and other measures brought to the floor through a special rule reported by the committee. This rule will provide the House the flexibility and ability to move the remaining legislation in a timely and efficient manner so that we can adjourn this legislative day. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1053 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward and pass necessary legislation and do the business of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I particularly again want to thank the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and also the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). They have worked together on this legislation and presented us with a truly model bill and one I think they adjusted during the legislative process to meet the needs of American men and women who are serving under very difficult circumstances to protect this country. I particularly appreciate the fact that they made sure that these deserving individuals got a pay raise, that they made sure that the people who defended the country in the past were not subjected to unnecessary fee increases in the Tricare system, and they worked hard to shift funds towards force protection and the protection of individual American soldiers. And, at the same time, they addressed the very, very serious and critical needs of the Army and Marine Corps in terms of additional personnel and additional equipment. I think the chairman and the ranking member can be exceptionally proud of their efforts, and I think all of us can appreciate the bipartisan spirit that the members of the House Armed Services Committee acted in, and I am sure when we vote later today we will have a strong vote in support of the legislation. Obviously, it comes as no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, from California.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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 yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to make a couple of points in response to my good friend from Wisconsin's observations. First, on the bridge fund for appropriations for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I just want to note for the record, it is considerably higher than it has been in the past, $70 billion, I believe, as opposed to $50 billion. That is a significant increase. Also, that bridge fund allows us to frankly adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield. The reality is battlefields do not move in budgetary cycles, or wars do not. And, finally, it keeps us from building in a lot of expense of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq into the permanent base. We think it has been a good procedure to move forward with in this conflict. In terms of the cuts my friend mentioned, let me just say again for the record, if we check each year, we actually spend more money than we do the year before, and on more things. We have many, many choices to make, many, many tough decisions to make. The most important priority for government is always the defense of its citizens and the operation of its military. I would actually argue, I would probably agree with my friend, we should have been spending more there, we should have spent more there during the 1990s. In every other area of government, the reality is, including education, you mention No Child Left Behind, our expenditures are considerably higher than they were just a few years ago, and they continue to grow every year. So while we would all like to do more, the reality is we have increased the expenditures considerably. Some would argue too much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I came here largely to talk about the defense bill, but I want to discuss some of the points my good friend from Ohio made. While I respect him, I respectfully disagree. Frankly, the administration, this government, never claimed we went to Iraq because of 9/11. We claim we went there because they repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions and they were pursuing activities, as indeed they were, to get themselves out of sanctions, and they expelled weapons inspectors from their country. Every intelligence agency in the world believed they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction; and, indeed, the reality is we probably simply caught them early in the process, rather than later in the process. I think my friend's comments are based on the unstated but very real premise that this war is somehow better off if Saddam Hussein was still in Baghdad. That is simply an assertion or an opinion that I reject. I have been to Iraq six times, as many of my colleagues frankly on both sides of the issues have been numerous times, and I simply remind my friends what Saddam Hussein and Baghdad meant: two regional wars that more than 1 million people died in; twice close to nuclear weapons, once in 1981, once in 1991; 270-odd mass graves in Iraq. I have been to Iraq. Nobody in Iraq wants Saddam Hussein back. Nobody in Iraq, at least of any significant numbers, would tell you that they lived in a good era, and everybody in the region I think would tell you that the region is better off without him. That does not mean that we have an easy situation that is confronting us. Indeed, it is very difficult and I would acknowledge that up front, but I think it calls for perseverance. I think an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster for the region and, frankly, would endanger people, thousands of whom have placed their faith and their confidence in the United States of America. I am extraordinarily proud, as I know each and every Member of this body is, of the men and women that wear the uniform of the United States and do the tough job that we ask them to do. I think in the long view of history people will look back on this and say they did a very important job very well for this country and, like their fathers and grandfathers before them, for the region in which they were deployed, because where they go, democracy has followed. Democracy certainly was not going to break out on its own in Iraq, nor was Saddam Hussein going to wither away on the vine in Iraq, in my opinion. So I respect the decision that the President and the administration made, that this Congress on a bipartisan basis supported, dozens of my friends on the other side of the aisle voting in favor of giving the President the right to use force; half, I believe, of our friends in other body on the other side of the aisle voting for the President to have the option to use force and go into Iraq. That is something we ought to remember as we have this debate. We did not go to war on a partisan vote. We went to war on a bipartisan decision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to differ with my good friend from New York on something. I actually never mentioned President Clinton. You did. I talked about the 1990s, and I think there were mistakes in terms of size in our force by a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. I say this as somebody who was very pleased to serve in my first term on the Armed Services Committee where Members on both sides generally found themselves out of step with the majority on this body on the floor and the administration and wanted to do more. So I do not think this was a partisan mistake. I think this is a bipartisan error in judgment and a mistake about the way the world is, and I think my remarks reflected that. In terms of talking about whether or not the President told us the truth, I think the record is very clear that he did tell us the best intelligence estimates that we had. And I suspect that most members of the Intelligence Committee, if you look at the committee and go back and look at how they voted on a bipartisan basis, you will find there was considerable bipartisan consensus that that was indeed the case. Fair enough to say that there is now evidence that the judgment was wrong. I think that is legitimate to bring up and discuss. What concerns me is, quite often, because we now disagree with the judgment, we have to attack the motives of the people who made the judgment at that time. I disagree with that. I think the motives were good motives. We can argue about whether or not the decision was correct, but I do not think the President of the United States deliberately misled this body, nor did this body deliberately mislead the American people in the war. That is my opinion and my view of it. In terms of not caring about the war on terror, I would submit that is simply not the case. We can disagree about tactics, we can disagree about methods, but the fact that this country has not, thank goodness, and I always knock on wood when I say it, suffered another attack since 9/11, something that nobody on 9/12 would have predicted, is not an accident. It has happened because millions of Americans, thousands of people in uniform, our intelligence system, our border people and, frankly, people in this body have made tough and good decisions to try and keep this country safe. Now, could it be safer? I will quote the President. We are safer, but we are not safe. I think that is the record, but the reality is we are considerably safer today they than we were on 9/10, the day before, when we had no earthly idea the danger that we were facing and had not taken the preparations in my opinion that we should have taken to deal with it. I don't judge people harshly for that. People make mistakes, and it is easy to have 20-20 hindsight and be a Monday morning quarterback. But I do give credit when the record shows that somebody has succeeded, and I would tell you, in my opinion, this President, this administration, and, frankly, this Congress has by and large done the right things to keep the country safe over the last several years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to respond to a number of the points my good friend made. First, let me for the record go back and remind people of all the statements that we could line up here of one American leader after another, of both political parties, who told us that Saddam Hussein had active weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing those programs. It was this Congress, under President Clinton, that passed legislation that made it the object of American policy in 1998 to remove him from power because we thought he was a very dangerous person. So I do not think you can say everybody knew that that wasn't the case. Quite the opposite, in my opinion, is true. Most people saw him as a danger. In my opinion, they were correct. They may not have had an exact count of what he had available, but I think given his record of having used chemical weapons against his own people, of having launched the wars, of having tried twice and come close twice, according to our people, in acquiring numeral weapons, they were right, particularly in light of 9/11, to be very skeptical and very concerned. Second, I will ask our colleagues to take somewhat of the long view here. If this were 1954-55, we could all get here and say, gosh, wasn't Korea a terrible thing; it is a dictatorship, 50,000 American lives, what a waste. The reality is, if you look at Korea today, the sacrifices, the decisions made by a Democratic President, Truman, I think worked very well. There is a democracy there. It is secure. Thank goodness we made the tough decisions in that part of the world. I think Iraq will look the same way down road. Finally, I want to deal with my friend's concern about the war in Iraq has made us less safe or has stimulated terrorism. I have not had an opportunity to read, obviously, the classified document, which I understand today is now going to become available to all of us, so I want to preface my remarks by noting that I want to read what they actually said. But I do want to offer this observation. To say that somehow that Iraq has fostered Islamic terrorism and that Afghanistan somehow wouldn't have is just counterintuitive to me. If Iraq did it, and we were in Afghanistan alone, which nobody seems to debate, we would still have that same force running through the Islamic world, that same stimulus. It is a reaction, I think, to us legitimately defending ourselves in the case of Afghanistan. It would occur just as surely as it has in Iraq.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.