Guantanamo Detention Center:
Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Anna C. Henning
Legislative Attorney
August 6, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40754
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Summary
The detention of alleged enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
has been the focus of significant legislative activity during the 111th Congress. The Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), enacted in June 2009, contains several provisions
relevant to Guantanamo detainees. Section 319 of the act includes an ongoing reporting
requirement. Section 14103 restricts the use of funds for the transfer and release of the detainees
in specified circumstances. Although the Supplemental Appropriations Act is the only
Guantanamo-related measure enacted to date in the 111th Congress, versions of defense
appropriations and authorization bills passed by the House and Senate also contain provisions that
would establish reporting requirements, restrict the transfer or release of detainees, or amend
military commission procedures. Various other proposals address a range of issues related to
detainee treatment, executive and judicial authority, and other matters.
This report analyzes the relevant provisions of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, and
selected legislative proposals that have been introduced in the 111th Congress. For more detailed
explorations of the legal issues related to the potential closure of the detention facility and the
transfer, release, and treatment of detainees, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo
Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John Garcia, et al., and CRS Report RL33180,
Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court, by Jennifer K. Elsea,
Kenneth R. Thomas, and Michael John Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 ...................................................................................... 2
Pending Legislative Proposals ..................................................................................................... 4
Provisions in Selected Authorization and Appropriations Bills............................................... 5
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647) ............................. 5
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390) ................................. 6
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 2892) ....................... 6
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326)......................................... 7
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010 (H.R. 2996).................................................................................................. 7
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act, 2010, H.R. 3081 ................................................................................................... 8
Selected Additional Bills ....................................................................................................... 8
Bills Providing for Transfer for Criminal Prosecution...................................................... 9
Restrictions on the Transfer or Release of Detainees into the United States.................... 10
Interrogation, Treatment, or Prosecution........................................................................ 10
Executive Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants and Judicial Authority to Hear
Habeas Corpus Claims .............................................................................................. 12
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Introduction
In 2001, Congress authorized the President’s use of “all necessary and appropriate force” against
those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.1 Pursuant to that authority, the United States has
captured suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members and detained them at several locations,
including the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Of the nearly 800 alleged enemy
combatants whom the United States has detained at Guantanamo throughout the course of post-
9/11 military operations, all but 229 detainees have been released or transferred from the base.
For the remaining Guantanamo detainees, practical and legal hurdles, including national security
concerns and questions regarding detainees’ rights under international law and the U.S.
Constitution, have delayed prosecutions and made transfers difficult.2
Highlighting the prominence of the issue, three executive orders signed by President Obama
shortly after he took office address the Guantanamo detention facility and Guantanamo detainees.
To “promptly” close the detention facility and “in order to effect the appropriate disposition of”
Guantanamo detainees, one executive order required the closure of the detention facility as soon
as practicable, and no later than January 22, 2010.3 It also ordered an immediate review of each
detainee’s status and temporarily halted all proceedings before military commissions.4 A second
executive order limited the methods for interrogating persons in U.S. custody (as part of any
armed conflict) to those listed in the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations, although it provides an exception for interrogations by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, stating that the FBI may “continu[e] to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of
interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force,
threats, or promises.”5 A third executive order established the Special Task Force on Detainee
Disposition, which is tasked with “identif[ying] lawful options” for the disposition of
Guantanamo detainees and others captured by the United States.6 Because executive orders can
be revoked by subsequent presidential directives, legislation would be necessary to make the
1 Authorization to Use Military Force, P.L. 107-40 (2001). The authority applies to “nations, organizations, or persons”
who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” and to people who harbored the perpetrators of the
attacks.
2 For more detailed background information and an analysis of legal issues implicated by the potential closure of
Guantanamo, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John
Garcia et al.
3 Executive Order 13492, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and
Closure of Detention Facilities, 74 Fed. Reg. 4897–4900 (Jan. 27, 2009).
4 Id. Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, P.L. 109-366, to authorize the President to convene
military commissions to prosecute “alien unlawful enemy combatants.” The act exempted the new military
commissions from several requirements, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that would have otherwise
applied. For a detailed analysis of the military commissions created pursuant to the Military Commissions Act, see
CRS Report RL33688, The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with
Previous DOD Rules and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by Jennifer K. Elsea. More recently, the Secretary of
the Department of Defense notified Congress of five proposed modifications to the procedures for the military
commissions established under the Military Commissions Act. See White House Press Release, Statement of President
Barack Obama on Military Commissions (May 15, 2009).
5 Executive Order 13491, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, 74 Fed. Reg. 4891–4896 (Jan. 27, 2009); Army Field
Manual, § FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September
6, 2006.
6 Executive Order 13493, Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901–4902 (Jan. 27, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
1
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
President’s policies permanent. Likewise, Congress could reverse or adjust the approach of the
executive orders in any area in which it has the authority to act.
Key issues implicated by the potential closure of the detention facility include the transfer or
release of detainees and procedures for prosecuting detainees or assessing their enemy combatant
status. Members have noted that issues related to the disposition of the remaining detainees
complicate any legislative actions to fund, mandate, or prohibit closure of the detention facility.
For example, when introducing a bill proposing a timeline for closure of the facility, Senator
Feinstein noted that “the hard part about closing Guantanamo is not deciding to go do it; it is
figuring out what to do with the remaining detainees.”7 Thus, much of the legislative activity
related to Guantanamo has focused on the transfer, release, and treatment of detainees.
Congress enacted the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), in June 2009.
Provisions of the law establish reporting requirements and restrict the transfer and release of
Guantanamo detainees, thereby requiring further information regarding the disposition of
detainees before appropriated funds may be used to effectuate the closure of the detention facility
or the transfer or release of detainees into the United States. In addition, the House and Senate
have passed several provisions as part of appropriations or authorization measures that would
likewise restrict the use of federal funds for the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees until
reporting requirements have been fulfilled. The measures to restrict detainees’ transfer to or
release are perhaps prompted by perceived security risks to U.S. citizens that some argue could
arise if suspected terrorists were detained or tried in the United States.8 Other provisions in
appropriations bills would amend the military commissions framework or address the application
of Miranda warnings to those in U.S. custody. This report discusses relevant provisions of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, appropriations bills that have been passed by at least one
chamber, and selected additional proposals which address issues relevant to Guantanamo
detainees.
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), signed into law in June 2009, contains
two affirmative requirements or restrictions related to the Guantanamo detention facility and a
number of related provisions restricting the use of appropriated funds. Section 319 of the act
creates a general reporting requirement, which requires the President to submit reports on the
Guantanamo “prisoner population” to specified Members9 of Congress within 60 days of the
legislation’s enactment and every 90 days thereafter. The reports must provide the following
information with respect to each detainee: (1) name and country of origin; (2) a “summary of the
7 155 Cong. Rec. S157 (daily ed. Jan. 7, 2009) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).
8 See, e.g., Press release, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Members Introduce Bill to Prevent Transfer of Terrorists to Virginia
Prisons (Mar. 2, 2009), available at http://forbes.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=113008.
9 Members to whom the report must be submitted include: “(1) The majority leader and minority leader of the Senate;
(2) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; (3) The Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; (4) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; (5) The Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) The minority leader
of the House of Representatives; (7) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives; (8) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of
the House of Representatives; and (9) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.”
Congressional Research Service
2
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
evidence, intelligence, and information used to justify” his detention; and (3) a “current
accounting of all the measures taken to transfer” him to his home or another country. In addition,
the reports must state the “number of individuals released or transferred from detention ... who
are confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist activities after release or transfer” and provide
“an assessment of any efforts by al Qaeda to recruit detainees released from detention.” The
initial report (to be completed within 60 days of the legislation’s enactment) must address several
additional matters, including: (1) a “description of the process that was previously used for
screening the detainees” who have been released and are confirmed or suspected of returning to
terrorist activities; (2) “[a]n assessment of the adequacy of that screening process for reducing the
risk that detainees previously released or transferred ... would return to terrorist activities after
[their] release or transfer”; and (3) “[a]n assessment of lessons learned from previous releases and
transfers of individuals who returned to terrorist activities for reducing the risk that detainees
released or transferred ... will return to terrorist activities after their release or transfer.”10
Section 14103 prohibits the ceasing of operations at the Guantanamo detention center until a
report on the status of detainees has been submitted to Congress. Specifically, it requires the
President, before “the termination of detention operations” at the detention facility, to submit a
classified report to Congress which “describ[es] the disposition or legal status of each individual
detained at the facility.”11 It does not specify the level of detail that the report would need to
include with respect to each detainee, nor does it appear to impose any particular time line
governing submission of the report.
As mentioned, § 14103 also contains various provisions which restrict the use of funds for the
transfer and release of Guantanamo detainees. First, it bans the use of appropriated funds for the
purpose of releasing any individual detained at Guantanamo into the continental United States,
Hawaii, or Alaska. Thus, absent further legislation, it would appear that the Executive could not
transfer detainees into the United States for the purpose of release. However, the provision does
not appear to restrict the use of funds for the release of detainees to the U.S. territories, which
could raise questions regarding potential restrictions on detainees’ travel to the United States after
release to a U.S. territory.
Second, regarding the transfer of detainees, it conditions the use of funds on a reporting
requirement.12 Specifically, it bars the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of transferring a
detainee into the continental United States, Hawaii, or Alaska for continued detention or
prosecution, unless the President submits a plan to Congress 45 days prior to the transfer, in
classified form, concerning the proposed disposition of the individual to be transferred. In
particular, the plan must address: (1) “findings of an analysis regarding any risk to the national
security of the United States that is posed by the transfer”; (2) “costs associated with transferring
the individual”; (3) “[t]he legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer”; (4) “[a] plan
for mitigation of any risk”; and (5) “[a] copy of a notification to the Governor of the State to
which the individual will be transferred or to the Mayor of the District of Columbia if the
individual will be transferred to the District of Columbia with a certification by the Attorney
10 P.L. 111-32, 111th Cong. (2009) at § 319.
11 Id. at § 14103(f).
12 The most important difference between the original House and Senate versions of the legislation appears to have
arisen in the context of restrictions on the transfer of detainees into the United States. Whereas the Senate version
banned the use of funds for that purpose outright, the House version conditioned the use of funds for that purpose on
the fulfillment of a reporting requirement. The enacted legislation more closely resembles the House version with
respect to restrictions on the transfer of detainees.
Congressional Research Service
3
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
General of the United States in classified form at least 14 days prior to such transfer (together
with supporting documentation and justification) that the individual poses little or no security risk
to the United States.”13
Finally, the act creates a similar condition regarding the use of funds for the transfer or release of
a detainee to another country. In particular, it limits the availability of funds for the transfer or
release of a Guantanamo detainee to a foreign State, unless the President submits a classified
report to Congress, at least 15 days prior to the transfer, which contains specified information
regarding the proposed transfer. Specifically, the report must provide information regarding: (1)
the detainee’s name and the country to which he will be released or transferred; (2) “[a]n
assessment of any risk to the national security of the United States or its citizens, including
members of the Armed Services of the United States, that is posed by such transfer or release and
the actions taken to mitigate such risk”; and (3) “[t]he terms of any agreement with another
country for acceptance of such individual, including the amount of any financial assistance
related to such agreement.”14
Pending Legislative Proposals
Legislative proposals introduced both prior to and after the enactment of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009, address a range of issues, including closure of the base, transfer of
detainees to the United States, detainee treatment and prosecution, and jurisdictional matters.
Some of the first bills introduced during the 111th Congress suggested specific time frames for
closure of the Guantanamo detention facility.15 In introductory remarks regarding one such bill,
Representative Harman said that closure was necessary because the detention facility is “so
widely viewed as illegitimate, so plainly inconsistent with America’s proud legal traditions, that it
has become a stinging symbol of our tarnished standing abroad.”16 Although it is a position that
has been advocated,17 no bill introduced to date includes an unconditional bar on closure of the
detention facility. Instead, bills address a number of concerns implicated by the proposed closure.
The most recent legislative activity has taken place within the context of appropriation and
authorization measures. In many cases, differing provisions in versions passed by one chamber
would face consideration by the other chamber, or differences between two bills would be subject
to resolution by committee.
13 Id. at § 14103(d).
14 Id. at § 14103(e).
15 By requiring closure of the base within 180 days of enactment, the Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008,
H.R. 591, proposed the shortest time frame. The Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R. 1315, provided a
target date of December 31, 2009, which is slightly sooner than the date set by the President’s executive order. Two
companion bills, S. 147 and H.R. 374, would require closure within one year. The companion bills’ time line
corresponds with the one-year timetable set in President Obama’s executive order, although the one-year mark set by
the bills would track the date of the legislation’s enactment.15 All of these bills also provided corresponding options and
restrictions governing the transfer and prosecution of detainees.
16 155 Cong. Rec. E59 (daily ed. Jan. 9, 2009) (extended remarks of Rep. Harman).
17 See, e.g., Mitch McConnell, Don’t Close It, Wash. Post. (March 15, 2009) at A19.
Congressional Research Service
4
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Provisions in Selected Authorization and Appropriations Bills18
Various provisions in authorization and appropriations bills passed by the House or Senate are
relevant to the Guantanamo detention center. Some of the provisions passed by the House
resemble provisions enacted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, and earlier
bills19 and might be struck as duplicative before the bill is reported in the Senate.20 Other
provisions in appropriations bills address issues related to the prosecution of detainees. Perhaps in
response to judicial opinions invalidating provisions of the Military Commissions Act21 and to
concerns regarding detainee abuse,22 some measures would eliminate the military commissions
framework for prosecution or provide additional standards governing interrogation and treatment.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647)
The House version of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 2647, contains several
relevant provisions, some of which resemble or would reinforce measures already enacted as part
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009.23 First, § 1023 would require the President to
“consult” with the “chief executive” of any U.S. state, territory, or possession prior to transferring
or releasing a Guantanamo detainee into that local jurisdiction. The consultation requirement
appears to contemplate a somewhat greater degree of involvement by state governors than the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, which requires a certification that a governor has been
“notified” regarding a transfer. Second, § 1023 would also require the President to submit a plan
to the congressional defense committees at least 120 days before transferring or releasing any
Guantanamo detainee anywhere within the United States, its territories or possessions. The report
would include: (1) “an assessment of the risk that the [detainee] poses to the national security of
the United States, its territories, or possessions”; (2) a proposal for the disposition of each
detainee; (3) a plan to mitigate any identified risks; and (4) a “summary” of the consultation that
took place with the local jurisdiction’s chief executive. Regarding the release of detainees into the
United States, it appears that the National Defense Authorization Act would allow the release of
detainees as long as the reporting and consultation conditions were fulfilled, whereas the
Supplemental Appropriations Act contains an outright ban on the use of appropriated funds to
release of detainees into the United States. Finally, § 1058 would require the Department of
Defense to “take such actions as are necessary to ensure the videotaping or otherwise
electronically recording of each strategic intelligence interrogation” of any person in the
Department’s custody.
18 For more information on appropriations requests and proposals related to Guantanamo, see CRS Report R40531,
FY2009 Spring Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations, coordinated by Stephen Daggett
and Susan B. Epstein, and CRS Report RL34473, Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat Towell,
Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco.
19 See, e.g., Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, S. 291, 111th Cong. (2009); Guantanamo
Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, H.R. 1069, 111th Cong. (2009).
20 For example, provisions passed by the House as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2847, were similar to provisions considered during deliberations leading to the
enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. These were struck from the bill before it was reported in the
Senate.
21 See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (invalidating the provision in the act that purported to
foreclose habeas corpus challenges brought by Guantanamo detainees).
22 See, e.g., Senate Armed Services Committee, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, available with
redactions at http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf.
23 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2647, 111th Cong. (2009).
Congressional Research Service
5
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390)
Subtitle D of the Senate version of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, S.
1390, contains several provisions addressing military commissions and the reading of Miranda
warnings. Section 1031 would replace the chapter of the U.S. Code, enacted as part of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006, which governs military commissions procedures.24 Examples
of changes proposed by the measure include a prohibition on the use of evidence elicited by cruel
or degrading treatment; a shift to the government of the burden of proof for the reliability of
hearsay evidence; an extension of the obligation to disclose exculpatory information to include
evidence of mitigating circumstances; and a new requirement that limits military commissions’
jurisdiction to offenses which occurred “in the context of and associated with armed conflict.”
In addition, § 1033 would restrict the reading of the warnings required in the general law
enforcement context by Miranda v. Arizona.25 Applying Miranda, courts generally do not admit
defendants’ statements at trial unless law enforcement officers issued the warnings, which
typically begin with “You have the right to remain silent,” before the statements were made.
Section 1033 would prohibit the reading of Miranda warnings, absent a court order requiring that
such warnings be read, to any “foreign national who is captured or detained as an enemy
combatant by the United States.”26
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 2892)
Section 552 of the version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 that
was passed by the House, H.R. 2892, contains several national security measures related to
Guantanamo detainees.27 First, it requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to “conduct a threat
assessment for each [Guantanamo detainee] who is proposed to be transferred to the continental
United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States Territories.” The
assessment would examine the likelihood that a detainee might: (1) “instigate an act of terrorism
within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United
States Territories”; or (2) “advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated
criminal activity, or acts of terrorism, among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within
the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States
Territories.” Second, it requires the Secretary to include former detainees on the “No Fly List,”
24 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, S. 1390, 111th Cong. (2009), at § 1031.
25 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
26 Section 504 of the version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2701, which was reported
in the House, contains a similar prohibition. Two other bills passed by the House during the 111th Congress also
address the application of Miranda warnings to people held in U.S. custody. Section 744 of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3170, “requests the President, and directs the Attorney General,
to transmit to each House of Congress ... copies of any portions of all documents, records, and communications in their
possession referring or relating to the notification of rights under [Miranda] ... to ... detainees in the custody of the
Armed Forces of the United States.” In addition, § 1036 of H.R. 2647 would require the Secretary of Defense to submit
a report within 90 days of the act’s enactment regarding how reading of Miranda rights to individuals taken into
custody 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.”
27 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2892, 111th Cong. (2009).
Congressional Research Service
6
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
“unless the President certifies in writing to Congress that the detainee poses no threat to the
United States, its citizens, or its allies.”28 Finally, it prohibits the use of funds appropriated under
the act to “provide any immigration benefit (including a visa, admission into the United States,
parole into the United States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for asylum)” to any
former Guantanamo detainee.
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326)
Section 8119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3326, a bill which
was passed by the House, includes reporting requirements and restricts the transfer and release of
Guantanamo detainees in a manner very similar to the restrictions in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009.29 Like § 14103 of the enacted Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009,
it contains both an outright restriction on the use of funds for the release of detainees into the
United States and reporting requirements to be fulfilled before detainees could be transferred to
the United States or another country.30 One potentially important difference between § 8119 and
the enacted law is that the § 8119 restrictions would apply to the transfer or release not only to the
continental United States and Alaska and Hawaii, but also to “any of the United States territories
of Guam, American Samoa (AS), the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).” Thus, it would
restrict transfers to the U.S. territories, whereas the Supplemental Appropriations Act addresses
only transfers to the continental U.S. or Alaska and Hawaii.
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 2996)
Like H.R. 3326, § 426 of the House version of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2996, appears aimed to address gaps regarding
transfers to U.S. territories that the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, does not address.31 It
28 Two related bills introduced in the House would require that Guantanamo detainees’ names be added to the
Transportation Security Administration’s “no-fly list.” A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require inclusion
on the no fly list certain detainees housed at the Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, H.R. 2503, 111th Cong.
(2009); Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 2200, 111th Cong. (2009) at § 405(a). One of
these bills, H.R. 2200, was passed by the House. It would allow for the removal of individuals’ names from the no-fly
list upon a certification by the President that a former detainee no longer posed a “threat to the United States, its
citizens, or its allies.”
29 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3326, 111th Cong. (2009), at § 8119.
30 The reporting requirement upon which transfers to the United States would be conditioned contains elements nearly
identical to those that would be included in a report submitted prior to transfer pursuant to § 14103 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act. Namely, § 8119 would require the President to submit a “comprehensive plan regarding the
proposed disposition” of each detainee except those whom the President proposes to transfer or release to another
country. The plan must include, “at a minimum”: (1) “findings of an analysis regarding any risk to the national security
of the United States that is posed by the transfer of the individual”; (2) “costs associated with not transferring the
individual”; (3) “[t]he legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer”; (4) a “certification by the President
that any risk ... has been mitigated, together with a full description of the plan for such mitigation”; and (5) a
“certification by the President that the President has submitted to the Governor and legislature of the State or territory
... a certification in writing at least 30 days prior to such transfer ... that the individual does not pose a security risk to
the United States.” One substantive difference appears in the fifth element. Whereas the Supplemental Appropriations
Act requires notification of a state’s governor, only, § 8119 requires certification that notification has been given to
both the relevant governor and legislature.
31 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2996, 111th Cong.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
bars the use of appropriated funds for the release of Guantanamo detainees to “any of the United
States territories of Guam, American Samoa (AS), the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI),” and it conditions the use of funds for the transfer of detainees to any of those locations
on the fulfillment of a reporting requirement. Unlike other bills, it would also restrict transfers to
“associated states.” In particular, it would establish a reporting requirement for the transfer or
release of detainees to any “freely associated state”—namely Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau. However, these
provisions were struck from the version of the bill that was reported in the Senate.
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3081
Finally, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2010, H.R. 3081, which has been passed by the House and placed on the Senate calendar,
contains a five-day notification requirement for transfers to other countries. Specifically, § 7087
restricts the obligation of funds “for any country ... that concludes an agreement with the United
States to receive [Guantanamo detainees] by transfer or release ... unless, not later than 5 days
after the conclusion of the agreement but prior to implementation of the agreement, the Secretary
of State notifies the Committees on Appropriations in writing of the terms of the agreement.”32
Selected Additional Bills
Because the most recent legislative activity related to Guantanamo detentions has taken place in
the context of appropriations and authorization measures, it is likely that many bills introduced
earlier in the 111th Congress have informed the debate in that context. For example, as discussed,
§ 14103 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, requires the President to certify that he
has notified the governor of any state to which he intends to transfer a Guantanamo detainee prior
to transferring a detainee to that state. A bill introduced earlier, the Keep Terrorists Out of
America Act, H.R. 2294, first proposed that the President not only notify but also obtain consent
from state governors and legislatures before transferring or releasing a Guantanamo detainee.33
Likewise, before such restrictions were enacted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2009, various bills proposed restrictions on the use of federal funds for the purpose of transferring
or releasing detainees in the United States.34
(...continued)
(2009).
32 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3081, 111th Cong.
(2009) at § 7087.
33 Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, H.R. 2294, 111th Cong. (2009).
34 For example, S. 370 would have prohibited the use of federal funds to transfer detainees or construct detention
facilities for them anywhere within the United States. H.R. 1012 would similarly have prohibited the use of Department
of Defense funds for such purposes and forbids the Department from coordinating with another department to effect
transfers into the United States. In addition, another set of bills – H.R. 148, H.R. 565, H.R. 633, H.R. 701, H.R. 794,
H.R. 817, H.R. 829, H.R. 951, H.R. 1073, H.R. 1186, H.R. 1566, and H.R. 2315 – would restrict the use of federal
funds for transferring Guantanamo detainees to particular locations within the United States. Such locations include,
respectively: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina; brigs in Miramar
and Camp Pendleton, California; any facility in Oklahoma; the Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado;
any facility in Georgia; any facility in North Carolina; any facility in Florida; any facility in Arizona; any facility in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Likewise, some proposals introduced outside of the context of appropriations or authorization
measures have been affected by the enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. For
example, provisions authorizing the transfer of detainees for the purposes of criminal prosecution
would be impacted by the reporting requirements enacted in § 14103 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act.
Other bills contemplate approaches not addressed in the context of the appropriations or
authorization bills currently under consideration. In addition, differences among proposals raise
questions not addressed by provisions that have passed the House or Senate. For example, a
remaining question is whether detainees who are criminally prosecuted but acquitted after judicial
proceedings might be subject to continued preventive detention. Bills introduced early in the 111th
Congress to require closure of the detention facility differ in their approaches to continued
preventive detention—i.e., detention for purposes other than prosecution or punishment. For
example, whereas three of the bills that would require closure of the detention facility, S. 147,
H.R. 374, and H.R. 1315, would allow further preventive detention “in accordance with the law
of the armed conflict,” another such bill, H.R. 591, does not contain a provision expressly
authorizing detainees’ transfer to the United States for the purpose of continued preventive
detention.35
Bills Providing for Transfer for Criminal Prosecution
Several bills introduced during the 111th Congress to mandate the closure of the detention
facility—specifically S. 147, H.R. 374, H.R. 591, and H.R. 1315—would also authorize transfer
to a detention facility in the United States for criminal prosecution.36 However, transfer to the
United States under H.R. 1315 would apply only after a panel of military judges had reviewed a
detainee’s status and determined that he was an unlawful enemy combatant. Under these bills, it
is unclear whether detainees might then be released into the United States if acquitted after a
criminal trial. Even if the bills contemplate such release, detainees would presumably lack
immigration status and be subject to U.S. immigration laws. Sponsors of the measures noted that
the Guantanamo detention “experiment” has lasted seven years and resulted in only three
convictions. The bills appear to emphasize a priority on transfer for the purpose of initiating
criminal prosecutions in a timely manner.37 Appearing to counter other lawmakers’ concerns
(...continued)
Virginia; any military installation or federal detention center in Minnesota; and any facility in Ohio. Explaining the
concern prompting one such bill, Representative Forbes of Virginia explained that Guantanamo detainees’ suspected
“connections with terrorist organizations ... rais[es] significant security questions about moving these suspects to
facilities within Virginia, especially as many of the [Virginia] facilities are within miles of neighborhoods, military
bases, and schools.” Press release, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Members Introduce Bill to Prevent Transfer of Terrorists to
Virginia Prisons (Mar. 2, 2009), available at http://forbes.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=
113008.
35 In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the
President may preventively detain persons properly determined to be “enemy combatants” – a category not fully
defined but which includes those captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan – for the duration of the conflict.
542 U. S. 507 (2004). Under Hamdi, it appears that Guantanamo detainees properly determined to be “enemy
combatants” may be held in preventive detention by military authorities even if transferred to the United States. It is
unclear whether H.R. 591 would purport to reverse that grant of authority as applied to Guantanamo detainees.
36 Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591, 111th Cong. (2009); Lawful Interrogation and Detention
Act, H.R. 374, 111th Cong. (2009); Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, S. 147, 111th Cong. (2009); Terrorist
Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R. 1315, 111th Cong. (2009).
37 155 Cong. Rec. S157 (daily ed. Jan. 7, 2009) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).
Congressional Research Service
9
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
regarding ensuing security risks, Senator Feinstein said that “federal civilian or military justice
systems ... have handled terrorists and other dangerous individuals before and are capable of
dealing with classified evidence and other unusual factors.”38 These bills also contain options for
transferring detainees to international tribunals, transfer to a detainee’s home country or a
different country, and release.
Restrictions on the Transfer or Release of Detainees into the United States
Rather than restrict the use of funds as multiple appropriations and authorization measures have
done, some bills would restrict the transfer or release of detainees through provisions that restrict
detainees’ immigration status, require certifications, or limit judicial authority. For example, H.R.
1238 would make an alien detained at Guantanamo “permanently ineligible” for both “admission
to the United States for any purpose” and “parole into the United States or any other physical
presence in the United States that is not regarded as an admission.”39 Likewise, S. 1071, the
Protecting America’s Communities Act, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
prohibit the admission, asylum entry, or parole entry of a Guantanamo detainee into the United
States.40 It would also require that a Guantanamo detainee be detained for an additional six
months after the “removal period” if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that: (1) the
detainee “cannot be removed due to the refusal of all countries designated by the [detainee] or
under this section to receive the [detainee]”; and (2) “the Secretary is making reasonable efforts to
find alternative means for removing the [detainee].”41
Similarly, the Protection from Enemy Combatants Act, S. 108, would forbid the release by a U.S.
court of any “covered alien”—defined as any person who “was detained” at Guantanamo—into
the United States.42 It would also bar the issuance of an immigration visa or the granting of any
immigration status that might facilitate a detainee’s entry into the United States or continued
presence after release from custody. However, S. 108 contains a waiver provision that would
allow the President to remove the restriction where doing so would be “consistent with the
national security of the United States.” S. 1081, introduced by Senator Graham, includes
measures similar to those in H.R. 1238 and S. 108, but it would apply only to non-U.S. citizens
who had been determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be enemy combatants.43
Interrogation, Treatment, or Prosecution
As discussed supra, the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act bill, S. 1390,
would replace the existing chapter of the U.S. Code that sets forth procedures for the military
commissions established pursuant to the Military Commissions Act. Several additional bills
introduced during the 111th Congress address the treatment or prosecution of Guantanamo (and
other) detainees. Treatment is currently governed by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and
38 Id.
39 A bill to prohibit the presence in the United States of any alien formerly detained at the Department of Defense
detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, H.R. 1238, 111th Cong. (2009).
40 Protecting America’s Communities Act, S. 1071, 111th Cong. (2009).
41 For more information regarding the removal of aliens, see CRS Report RL32564, Immigration: Terrorist Grounds
for Exclusion and Removal of Aliens, by Michael John Garcia and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
42 Protection from Enemy Combatants Act, S. 108, 111th Cong. (2009).
43 A bill to prohibit the release of enemy combatants into the United States, S. 1081, 111th Cong. (2009).
Congressional Research Service
10
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.44 Pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,
all persons in the custody or control of the U.S. military (including Guantanamo detainees) must
be treated in accordance with Army Field Manual requirements.45 Under Common Article 3,
detainees must be treated humanely and protected from “violence to life and person,” “cruel
treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment.”46 The same requirements would apply if detainees were transferred to the
United States. In contrast, prosecution is governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
which addresses only detainees held at Guantanamo; inside the United States, it is unclear
whether a civilian, military, or an alternative judicial process that is in accordance with
constitutional rights afforded to persons located in the United States might be used to prosecute
detainees.
Other proposals which address military commissions procedures include H.R. 591, which would
institute or prompt the formulation of major reforms for interrogating and prosecuting detainees.47
Referring to the “failure of the military commissions system,” it contains provisions that repeal
the Military Commissions Act and abolish the military commission system established by the act.
Instead, prosecutions would take place in federal civilian courts or in military court proceedings.
In addition, it would direct the President to establish a “Center for Excellence in Human
Intelligence Collection” and develop “uniform standards for the interrogation of persons in the
custody or under the effective control of the United States.” It would also require that
interrogations be videotaped. Similarly, the Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R.
1315, would repeal the Military Commissions Act.48 It would establish new procedures for
hearings by combatant status review tribunals. Specifically, panels comprised of three military
judges would determine whether a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant, in a manner similar
to hearings that take place pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to determine whether
sufficient evidence exists to warrant a court martial proceeding.
S. 147 and H.R. 374 would require that interrogations of all persons in custody of U.S.
intelligence agencies be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Field Manual.49 The bills
would foreclose the possibility, left open in President Obama’s executive order on interrogation,
that techniques other than those in the Army Field Manual could eventually be deemed
appropriate for use by agencies outside the military.50
44 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that Common Article 3 applies to Guantanamo detainees in a 2006 case,
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
45 Section 1002 of P.L. 109-148 requires the DOD to follow the Army Field Manual for intelligence interrogation. See
Department of the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52), Human Intelligence Collector Operations (2006).
46 “Common Article 3” refers to the third article in each of the four Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces
at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217); the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949
(6 UST 3316); and the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6
UST 3516).
47 Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591, 111th Cong. (2009).
48 Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R. 1315, 111th Cong. (2009).
49 Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, H.R. 374, 111th Cong; Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, S. 147, 111th
Cong.
50 Executive Order, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, January 22, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/.
Congressional Research Service
11
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
Finally, a few bills would restrict detainees’ access to medical facilities or public benefits. Finding
that Guantanamo detainees “often receive better medical treatment and food than members of the
United States Armed Forces” and “are often treated better than inmates in American prisons,”
H.R. 1042 prohibits the provision of medical treatment to Guantanamo detainees in any facility
where members of the armed forces also receive treatment or in any facility operated by the
Department of Veteran’s Affairs.51 Another bill would make those detained at Guantanamo as of
the bill’s enactment and subsequently transferred to the United States “permanently ineligible” for
specified federal, state, or local benefits.52 It is possible that such provisions could raise legal
concerns regarding U.S. compliance with the Common Article 3 requirement to treat detainees
humanely, the equal protection clause, or other legal safeguards.
Executive Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants and Judicial Authority to
Hear Habeas Corpus Claims
Although the appropriations and authorization bills now under consideration generally do not
address broad issues related to executive authority to detain enemy combatants or judicial
authority to review habeas corpus petitions, several other bills introduced during the 111th
Congress address those issues. For example, the Protecting America’s Communities Act, S. 1071,
would “reaffirm” the President’s authority to “detain enemy combatants in connection with the
continuing armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces ... regardless of the
place of capture.”53 Similarly, the Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2009, H.R. 630,
“reaffirms that the President is authorized to detain enemy combatants in connection with the
continuing armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, regardless of the
place of capture, until the termination of hostilities.”54 These provisions would perhaps extend the
President’s authority to preventively detain enemy combatants as part of post-9/11 military
operations. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that the 2001 Authorization to Use
Military Force authorized the President to preventively detain enemy combatants captured during
hostilities in Afghanistan but did not address whether such authority extends to captures made in
other locations.55 With the language “regardless of place of capture,” S. 1071 and H.R. 630
appear to authorize preventative detentions of any alleged Al Qaeda or Taliban belligerent, even if
captured outside military operations in Afghanistan.
H.R. 630 would also amend the federal habeas corpus statute.56 For example, it would: (1) grant
exclusive jurisdiction over habeas challenges to the U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia; (2) establish a rebuttable presumption that detainees are enemy combatants for the
purpose of habeas review; and (3) require that habeas proceedings be stayed after charges are
brought under the Military Commissions Act and until a detainee has exhausted review
procedures established by that act. Because it stays habeas review only for detainees against
whom charges have been brought, this proposal differs from the broader denial of habeas review
51 To prohibit the provision of medical treatment to enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the same facility as a member of the Armed Forces or Department of Veterans Affairs
medical facility, H.R. 1042, 111th Cong. (2009).
52 No Welfare for Terrorists Act of 2009, H.R. 2338, 111th Cong. (2009).
53 Protecting America’s Communities Act, S. 1071, 111th Cong. (2009).
54 Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2009, H.R. 630, 111th Cong. (2009).
55 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
56 28 U.S.C. §2241.
Congressional Research Service
12
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress
which the Supreme Court struck down as constitutionally invalid in Boumediene v. Bush.57 It is
unclear whether this distinction would be sufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R. 1315, would likewise grant exclusive
jurisdiction over habeas challenges to the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia and stay
pending habeas cases.58 However, in contrast to H.R. 630, it would stay habeas proceedings not
to facilitate Military Commissions Act procedures but to await the outcome of status review
hearings held by panels of military judges. In addition, the time period in which judges would
render decisions in the status review process would be sharply limited—to 120 days from the
legislation’s enactment for all detainees.
Conclusion
Legislative proposals introduced during the 111th Congress offer various responses to closing the
Guantanamo detention facility, transfer and disposition of detainees, and detainee treatment.
Although President Obama has addressed several of these issues in executive orders, legislation
may be necessary to make measures taken in an executive order permanent or to effect alternative
approaches to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees. The provision enacted as part of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, arguably signaled Congress’s reticence to facilitate
closure of the detention facility before a detailed plan is in place governing the disposition of
detainees. As Congress considers additional legislation, its approach to the issue may be shaped
by the recommendations of the Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition, established by
executive order, which will likely address many issues raised by the legislative proposals.
Author Contact Information
Anna C. Henning
Legislative Attorney
ahenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-4067
57 553 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (holding that the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus applies to Guantanamo
detainees and that provisions in the Military Commissions Act do not provide an adequate substitute for habeas
claims). For more information on the Boumediene decision, see CRS Report RL34536, Boumediene v. Bush:
Guantanamo Detainees’ Right to Habeas Corpus, by Michael John Garcia.
58 Terrorist Detainees Procedures Act of 2009, H.R. 1315, 111th Cong. (2009).
Congressional Research Service
13