I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill is about women. It is about our sisters and daughters. It is about combating violence that no human being should ever face--rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking. By…

My point was that however narrow or broad the basket, and I am not suggesting broadening it, you have to answer that question first--Are you an enemy combatant?--and have the procedural due process.

Isn't it the case that if Russia or China or someone were doing what Mr. Cole posits, that we would condemn that out of hand?

Either this person is an enemy combatant, or he is not.

But who can determine that under what standards, and what precedents do we have?

I don't understand how a unilateral determination by an executive branch official without any judicial involvement can be considered due process in any form.

I was simply suggesting that none of this makes any sense until you have determined that someone is an enemy combatant.

We need due process, but not judicial process.

However narrow or broad the basket, you have to answer that question first--Are you an enemy combatant?--and have the procedural due process.

Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans refer to President Obama's sequestration, they must think that no one in the country remembers the events of the last 2 years. Remember that 2 years ago, the Republicans blackmailed the entire country by…

But all of that means very little if, when faced with a genuinely significant constitutional question, the House gives it the bum's rush. This bill should be subject to hearings in the Judiciary Committee, with input from constitutional…