U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–008 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2009

111–383 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COPIES 

OF ANY DOCUMENT, RECORD, MEMO, CORRESPONDENCE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OR ANY PORTION 

OF SUCH COMMUNICATION, THAT REFERS OR RELATES TO THE TRIAL OR DETENTION OF KHALID 

SHEIKH MOHAMMED, WALID MUHAMMAD SALIH 

MUBAREK BIN ’ATTASH, RAMZI BINALSHIBH, ALI 

ABDUL AZIZ ALI, OR MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL 

HAWSAWI 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H. RES. 924 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

DECEMBER 17, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

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 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose and Background ........................................................................................ 2 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 3 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 3 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 3 

Compliance with House Rule XXI .......................................................................... 3 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 3 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 4 

Record Vote .............................................................................................................. 4 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 6 

Additional and Dissenting Views: 

Additional Views of Cathy McMorris Rodgers ...................................................... 7 

Dissenting Views of Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Mac Thornberry, W. Todd 

Akin, J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Miller, Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo, Rob 

Bishop, Michael Turner, John Kline, Mike Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill Shuster, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, K. Michael Conaway, Doug Lamborn, Rob 

Wittman, Mary Fallin, Duncan Hunter, John C. Fleming, Mike Coffman, 

Thomas J. Rooney, Todd Russell Platts ............................................................. 8 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–383 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE 

OF REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF ANY DOCUMENT, RECORD, MEMO, 

CORRESPONDENCE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE, OR ANY PORTION OF SUCH COMMUNICATION, THAT REFERS OR RELATES TO THE TRIAL OR DETENTION OF KHALID SHEIKH 

MOHAMMED, WALID MUHAMMAD SALIH MUBAREK BIN ’ATTASH, RAMZI 

BINALSHIBH, ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI, OR MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL 

HAWSAWI 

DECEMBER 17, 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 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 924] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 

resolution (H. Res. 924) directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of any document, record, 

memo, correspondence, or other communication of the Department 

of Defense, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to the trial or detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid 

Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali 

Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and 

recommend that the resolution as amended be agreed to. 

The amendments are as follows: 

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: 

That the House of Representatives directs the Secretary of Defense to transmit the 

following documents and records to the House of Representatives not later than 30 

days prior to the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih 

Mubarak Bin ’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed 

Adam al Hawsawi from the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to the United States: 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

(1) As required by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), an assessment of the risks that the detainee poses to the national security of the United States once he is transferred 

to the United States for trial. 

(2) As required by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), measures to mitigate any risks described 

in paragraph (1). 

(3) The location or locations at which the detainee will be held. 

(4) The costs associated with the transfer, mitigation of the risks described 

in paragraph (2), and any other costs related to the execution of the comprehensive plan required by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

(5) A summary of the consultation required by section 1041(d) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

(6) As required by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), a certification by the Attorney General 

that under the comprehensive plan referred to in paragraph (4) the detainee 

poses little or no security risk to the United States. 

Amend the title so as to read: 

Resolution directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives certain documents in the possession of the Department of Defense relating to detainees held at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, who are to be prosecuted in the United States. 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

On November 19, 2009, Congressman Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

(R–CA) introduced House Resolution 924, a resolution of inquiry. 

The resolution, as introduced, would direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 

days after the date of the adoption of the resolution, copies of any 

document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication 

of the Department of Defense, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to the trial or detention of Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ’Attash, Ramzi 

Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al 

Hawsawii. 

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 924, within 14 legislative days or 

a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. House 

Resolution 924 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

on November 19, 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 December 15, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services took 

up House Resolution 924 for the purpose of reporting a recommendation to the House. House Resolution 924 was amended to 

direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives certain documents and records not later than 30 days 

prior to the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz 

Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawii from the United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States, to inVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Dec 18, 2009 Jkt 089008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR383.XXX HR383

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

clude, as also required by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the location(s) at which the detainee will be held, costs, a summary of the 

consultation required by section 1041, and certification that the detainee poses little or no risk in compliance with section 1041. Additionally, the title of House Resolution 924 was amended so as to 

read: ‘‘A resolution directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit 

to the House of Representatives certain documents in the possession of the Department of Defense relating to detainees held at the 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are to 

be prosecuted in the United States.’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

House Resolution 924 was introduced on November 19, 2009, and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

On December 15, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held 

a mark-up session to consider House Resolution 924, as introduced. 

The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported 

House Resolution 924, as amended, to the House with a favorable 

recommendation by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE POSITION

On December 15, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services, a 

quorum being present, ordered to be reported House Resolution 

924, 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 924 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. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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, a record vote was taken with respect to 

the committee’s consideration of House Resolution 924. The record 

of this vote is included in this report. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 HR383.001
6 

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 statue or part thereof. There were 

no changes in existing law made by House Resolution 924, as reported. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(7) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS BY CONGRESSWOMAN CATHY 

MCMORRIS RODGERS 

It disturbs me that this Administration believes that the benefits 

of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other co-conspirators in the United States and in a U.S. courtroom outweigh the 

benefits of trying them before the military commissions. This is unacceptable. I think it is critical that we understand the basis for 

Attorney General Holder’s decision. Does he believe that terrorists 

deserve the rights afforded by the constitution and that those 

rights outweigh the security of actual U.S. citizens? These are terrorists who were detained outside the United States. These are terrorists who were detained in a war zone. These are terrorists who 

want to kill Americans. Military Commissions are no doubt the appropriate forum for trying alleged war crimes. For example, in a 

military commission, an affidavit stating that the terrorists were 

captured on the battlefield can be used without the servicemember 

or unit testifying with the terrorist present. This is not the case in 

our justice system. The military commission at Guantanamo was 

designed specifically to protect our intelligence and the methods 

used to gather it. This is not the case in our justice system where 

in the interest of fairness, information is disclosed to the defendants. The courtroom at Guantanamo was constructed, at a cost of 

millions of dollars to taxpayers of the United States, to handle classified information and security needs. Moreover, the rules for conducting criminal trials in federal courts have been designed to prosecute conventional crimes by conventional criminals not terrorists 

who want to destroy America and its citizens. Finally, I would just 

like to add that if the Department of Justice believes that defendants will be found guilty—What does this say about the premise 

that defendants in our justice system are presumed innocent before 

proven guilty? What does that mean for all future defendants? 

What kind of precedent does this set? 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We write in dissent to H. Res. 924 and feel that by rejecting the 

underlying resolution and voting in favor of the Chairman’s substitute the committee missed an opportunity to exercise forceful 

oversight. Instead of simply restating current law, as the substitute 

mandated, the underlying resolution would have required the Department of Defense to provide Congress with all information referring or relating to the trial or detention of the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center 

and the Pentagon. This is precisely the type of oversight the American people demand and deserve. 

Nearly eleven months ago in one of his first acts in the White 

House, President Obama signed an executive order which ordered 

the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) closed by 

January 2010. At the time many of us doubted the wisdom of the 

decision and questioned whether the President had a plan in place 

to execute the decision. We worried that the President was making 

policy without fully grasping the difficulty of the problem and was 

blindly carrying out a campaign promise. 

Over ten months later the President still does not have a plan. 

The questions have only increased and the concerns continue to 

grow. Instead of providing a clear plan to the American people, 

we’ve seen piecemeal decisions, lacking coherence and explanation. 

As if there was any doubt about our concern, on the same day 

the committee marked up H. Res. 924, the Administration announced that terrorists held at the Guantanamo detention facility 

would be transferred to a facility in Thomson, Illinois. 

Like the Thomson announcement, the decision to prosecute in 

New York City Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other 9/11 

co-conspirators flies in the face of the will of the American people 

and a bipartisan majority of the Congress, which have already rejected bringing terrorists to U.S. soil for long-term detention. Current law prohibits it and future law should do the same. Instead 

of exercising caution and prudence, the Administration’s policy appears as if it is willing to transfer detainees out of GTMO at any 

cost. 

This decision is misguided. It is dangerous. It is wrong. Consistent with the rest of the President’s detainee policy, the Administration made this announcement without having a credible policy 

explanation for its decision. More than a month after Attorney 

General Holder made the announcement on November 13th, this 

committee still has not received an answer to the basic question of 

why President Obama decided to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the heart of New York and not prosecute him in a military 

commission. 

Shortly after the Attorney General’s announcement, the Ranking 

Members of the relevant national security committees sent a letter 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

to President Obama asking that he provide Congress answers to a 

number of basic questions, including: 

• What is the Administration’s detention strategy? 

• Will the Administration give key stakeholders a voice before it 

imports terrorists into the United States? 

• Can the Administration guarantee its ability to effectively detain and prosecute detainees on U.S. soil? 

• How will the Administration control the movements and communications of the detainees in the U.S.? 

Nearly a month later we have not received a response—these 

questions remain unanswered. There has been no consultation with 

the Congress. 

The concerns we raise are bipartisan—they reflect a deep anxiety 

shared by Americans across this country. 

After much delay and with the prospect of facing the committee 

markup of H. Res. 924 without a briefing, the Administration finally sent witnesses last Thursday to discuss the decision in a classified session. We were underwhelmed by the information we received and left feeling that the session taught us nothing new. 

Rather, the session made us question whether there was any legitimate policy rationale underlying this decision. Time and time again 

in the briefing, we did not receive a clear answer as to why the Administration made this decision. Instead, we were basically told to 

accept the decision and move on. 

We dissent from H. Res. 924 as reported because we are not 

ready to move on. We cannot accept this decision in silence. Transferring detainees into U.S. territory, giving the self-professed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks a platform to spread his venomous ideology, is a matter of public policy where the record underlying the 

decision should come to light. 

The resolution of inquiry, as originally drafted, would have provided the American people answers to questions the Administration 

has failed to provide, such as: on what policy grounds did the Administration decide to detain in the United States Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed and the four co-conspirators; how does this keep America safe; and why did the Administration decide not to use the commission system that this committee recently reformed to prosecute 

those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and New York 

City? 

This committee has tried to get this information from the Administration. Unfortunately, even a classified session could not induce 

an open and transparent discussion. If the representatives of the 

Administration cannot talk clearly and answer basic questions, 

then our only choice is to let the written record speak for them. 

Nine months after the President signed the Executive Order we 

have had no consultation and we remain unable to get a straight 

story. 

Simply asking for the Administration to comply with the existing 

law, as the Chairman’s substitute requires, does nothing new. It invites the Administration to continue the status quo of handing the 

Congress pre-cooked decisions without engaging the Congress on 

the risks and benefits of its decisions. By not adopting the underlying resolution the majority voted against learning more about the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

President’s controversial decision and stood against revealing to 

the American people the full story behind the decision. 

We believe that if the President can give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all the constitutional rights associated with being detained 

and prosecuted in the United States, then he should also give the 

American people the right to understand the basis of his decision. 

We deeply regret the majority chose not to support the underlying 

resolution. As a result, we failed to exercise the oversight our constituents expect and deserve. 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON. 

MAC THORNBERRY. 

W. TODD AKIN. 

J. RANDY FORBES. 

JEFF MILLER. 

JOE WILSON. 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO. 

ROB BISHOP. 

MICHAEL TURNER. 

JOHN KLINE. 

MIKE ROGERS. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

BILL SHUSTER. 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY. 

DOUG LAMBORN. 

ROB WITTMAN. 

MARY FALLIN. 

DUNCAN HUNTER. 

JOHN C. FLEMING. 

MIKE COFFMAN. 

THOMAS J. ROONEY. 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS