Congressional Record: December 14, 2005 (House)
Page H11580-H11583
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2863, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII
and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Murtha
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Murtha moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2863 be instructed
to agree to the provisions contained in--
(1) section 8154 of the Senate amendment, relating to
uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the
detention of the Department of Defense; and
(2) section 8155 of the Senate amendment, relating to
prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment of persons under custody or control of the United
States Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. The words ``torture,'' ``cruelty'' and ``abuse'' elicit
images of draconian and brutal dictatorship. These words are reserved
for the worst of human rights offenders. It should never include the
United States of America.
The United States of America and the values we reflect abhor human
rights violators and uphold human rights. No circumstance whatsoever
justifies torture. No emergencies, no state of war, no level of
political instability.
According to Secretary Powell, in his letter to Senator McCain in
support of the Senator's amendment, ``The troops need to hear from
Congress, which has an obligation to speak to such matters under
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.''
We have irrefutable evidence of widespread use of unlawful
interrogation techniques by American interrogators at Abu Ghraib and
other locations. This has been absolutely disastrous to our credibility
and our reputation as a Nation that was built on the sanctity of
individual rights.
We have a legal and moral and ethical obligation to uphold the values
of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against
Torture.
Furthermore, torture, cruelty and abuse are not effective methods of
interrogation. Torture may not yield reliable actionable information
and can lead to false confessions. And we have an example of that not
long ago, prior to the war.
Torture may not yield information quickly. Torture does not advance
our goals. It does not help us win the hearts and minds of people it is
used against. It did not aid the cause of the Soviets in Afghanistan
and the French in Algeria.
Torture has a corrupting effect on the perpetrators. It has rarely
been confined to narrow conditions. Once used and condoned, it easily
becomes widespread. The same practices found their way from Guantanamo
to Afghanistan to Iraq.
Torture is not only used against the guilty; it often leads to
unintentional abuse of the innocent. We cannot torture and still retain
the moral high ground.
Torture endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the
enemy. Torture brings discredit upon the United States.
There can be no waiver for the use of torture. No torture and no
exceptions.
Gray areas in rules, lack of direction, training and supervision from
superiors, lack of standards and clear guidelines from leaders are
dangerous and led to the abuse at Abu Ghraib and other locations.
During times of war, clear guidelines governing the treatment of
prisoners is imperative, especially when due to the lack of manpower,
people are put in jobs with little or no experience or people are put
in jobs that are not appropriate. The alleged ring leader at Abu Ghraib
had a history of domestic abuse and therefore, by law, could not carry
a firearm in the United States. Yet, he was a prison guard at Abu
Ghraib, and he was not suited for handling prisoners.
It is now evident that abuse of prisoners took place because of lack
of supervision, that our troops were given ambiguous instructions
which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what was
allowed in the Army Field Manual.
The definition of abusive treatment cannot be a matter of
subjectivity and ambiguity.
The administration confused matters further by declaring that U.S.
personnel are not bound by the Geneva Convention when interrogating
non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil.
Gross inconsistencies resulted: We followed the spirit of the Geneva
Convention in Afghanistan, the letter of the Geneva Convention in Iraq.
We had one set of rules for the prisoners of war, another for the enemy
combatants; one set for Guantanamo, another for Iraq; one for the
military, one for the CIA who were at times operating under the same
roof.
America does have clear guidelines as set forth in the Army Field
Manual. A number of those who were involved told me they would ask
their superiors and lawyers, do you think this was torture? Do you
think we violated the Geneva Convention? The answers they got differed,
as if something this important was a matter of opinion.
In the case of one of these people, Captain Fishback, I believe he
thought some of the troops clearly violated the Geneva Convention but
that the administration and Congress knew, ``as if there was a special
hand shake.'' In other words, when he came to see me, he thought we had
something to do with this. He said they were not clear, and they
thought that we were just winking at the regulations. And this is
dangerous. We cannot tolerate a practice of saying one thing and doing
another.
Using the argument terrorists do much worse, that al Qaeda does much
worse is a horrifying rationale. As Captain Fishback argues, ``since
when did al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the
morality of the United States?'' And that is a quote from Captain
Fishback.
Captain Fishback wrote to Senator McCain, ``If we abandon our ideals
in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never
really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even
the smallest part of that idea that is America.'' And Captain Fishback
was in Afghanistan for 18 months and in Iraq.
We cannot protect freedom abroad or at home while degrading our
society and its political and legal systems. We cannot do it while
trampling all over the values which have made this country strong,
which define us all as Americans. These values do not belong to any
party. They are not Democrat or Republican. They are American values.
We cannot allow our Nation's moral and ethical standards to drift
away from the Constitution. Congress is obligated to speak out.
Congress cannot give its power to the Executive Branch. Congress is the
people's branch.
Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, ``How necessary was the care of the
Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our
constitution so that no errors of reasoning or speculation might lead
us astray from its observance in practice.''
He also said, ``Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on
individuals.''
And I have to say this. War is about killing. For those sent to fight
an enemy, that killing will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
It is in
[[Page H11581]]
the faces of friends lost, in the shadows the soldiers feel on their
souls for having killed. This is the nature of war.
But when torture becomes a part of war, when torture is condoned, if
we allow torture in any form, we abandon our honor and the last shred
of humanity. Visions of abuse and torture chill our conscience and sear
our souls. Torture scars not only its subject; it scars those who
perpetrate it and those who are witnesses to it.
Most military leaders know that allowing torture subjects our
servicemembers to similar acts if captured. We in Congress must never
forget this because we are charged with sending our sons and daughters
into battle. This responsibility is doubly heavy today when America is
living in a time of great uncertainty and two wars.
In the case of Iraq, we are unsure of the war's rationale and where
it will lead us. In the war against terror, we are still struggling to
fathom our enemy and are troubled by his tactics.
It is all that more important now that we remember that America
stands for the honor of those we have sent to fight this war.
This amendment would restore our credibility, honors our war fighters
and affirms the value of this great country, the values that belong to
the United States of America.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important that we make it very clear
that we are opposed to the use of torture, period. As a matter of fact,
the basic law of the land already says that we are opposed to torture.
And so I have no problem with the gentleman's motion as it relates to
that issue.
But I must tell you that, Mr. Speaker, I am really offended by a
provision in this amendment that we are talking about that guarantees
to terrorists, and understand who those terrorists are, that guarantees
to terrorists the same rights under the Constitution of the United
States that our law-abiding constituents enjoy. That offends me. And I
just do not think that we ought to be giving a terrorist the same
protection of our Constitution that you and I have. Not just part of
our Constitution, not just one or two amendments or two articles or
sections, the entire Constitution would apply to those terrorists. So
that does offend me. But I understand that the President's office is in
serious negotiations with Senator McCain, and we hope that a reasonable
agreement on this issue will be reached so that we can get on with this
important Defense Appropriations bill that we in the House passed 6
months ago.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of
my friend and colleague Representative Jack Murtha's motion to instruct
conferees on the defense appropriations bill.
Mr. Murtha's effort would retain vital language prohibiting torture
of prisoners in U.S. custody wherever they may be held.
Mr. Murtha's motion would ensure that the final version of the
defense bill contains vital language offered by Senator John McCain and
by Congresswoman Jane Harman and myself here in the House.
The McCain amendment would prohibit the Defense Department from using
any interrogation practices other than those listed in the Army Field
Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation, and would reinforce the long-
standing ban on the Federal Government engaging in cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment throughout the world.
Such clarity in treatment of detainees is vitally needed as
continuing revelations of abuse of prisoners in our custody damages the
reputation of our Armed Forces abroad, undermines the trust of our
allies, and threatens the lives of U. S. service men and women who
might be captured by the enemy.
In addition to providing guidance to our troops, this language, by
forbidding abuse wherever it may occur, gets at the heart of the issue
of ghost detainees, prisoners kept and interrogated by the CIA in
countries that have not signed on to the Geneva Conventions.
Major General Taguba called the CIA's practice of holding ghost
detainees ``deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine and in violation of
Army law.''
The recent effort led by Vice-President Cheney to eliminate language
in the bill to constrain interrogations wherever they may occur is
misguided and will endanger our troops.
I agree that our post-9/11 world will never be what it was
previously, but that's no justification for turning our back on
international commitments and undercutting our international
credibility.
If our goal is, as I believe it should be, obtaining the best
possible actionable intelligence from suspects, then torture is not the
best tool in our arsenal.
Torture is immoral, illegal, and rarely yields necessarily credible
intelligence.
We're all too familiar with the misleading testimony of a high level
Al Qaeda member, who was rendered to Egypt, where he stated under
duress that Saddam Hussein had offered to train Al Qaeda operatives in
the use of ``chemical or biological weapons.''
Following his transfer to Guantanamo, this witness recanted and the
9/11 Commission confirmed that there was no working relationship
between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
When we abuse prisoners and flout the Geneva Conventions, we are no
better than some of the repressive regimes around the world whom we are
trying to change.
While administration officials at the highest levels including
Justice Department officials and Secretary Rumsfeld have argued for
great flexibility in handling of prisoners, more junior enlisted men
and women have been a true example to our Nation.
From Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, who first reported that abuse was
occurring at Abu Ghraib, to Army Captain Ian Fishback, who
unsuccessfully called for clearer guidelines on interrogation, our men
and women in uniform have been a moral compass to others who have lost
their way at all levels of government and who have betrayed our
nation's values.
We owe it to the rank and file who fight our Nation's wars and who
defend our flag around the world to adopt the McCain/Harman language
and to support Mr. Murtha's motion.
I call on all my colleagues to support this important motion.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the
aisle: Support this critically important motion to instruct.
It is identical to the amendment offered by Senator McCain--and
passed 90-9 and by voice vote in the Senate--on the defense
appropriations and defense authorization bills.
This motion would do two things. First, it would establish the Army
field manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of
department of defense detainees.
There is still much confusion about which interrogation techniques
are permissible--and this confusion has been fomented by a White House
that believed the Geneva Conventions were outmoded and inapplicable.
Secondly, this motion would prohibit ``cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment'' of detainees. Thus, it is consistent with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.
Sadly, this prohibition on torture is necessitated by the
administration's own actions: its endorsement of interrogation tactics
that border on torture, anything short of ``organ failure'', and a
large number of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
While the President stated in November that ``We do not torture,''
his own Vice President has worked against this motion and sought legal
language that would allegedly allow the CIA to utilize torture tactics
against foreign prisoners it is holding overseas.
As Senator McCain, himself a victim of torture at the hands of North
Vietnamese, recently stated: The administration's position ``means that
America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to
engage in cruel and inhumane treatment.''
The administration's position on this matter is simply not
defensible.
It undermines our credibility in the world. It harms our efforts in
the war on terror. It makes more likely the exposure of our own troops
to torture. And, it completely betrays our cherished American values.
This is not a question of whether we must combat--and defeat--
terrorists.
We must.
This is an issue of who we are as a people.
And we must never let it be said that when this generation of
Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics
of the tyrant; that we stooped to the depths of the dictator.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the responsibility under article I,
section 8 of our Constitution to make ``rules concerning captures on
land and water.'' That is a responsibility that we must embrace today,
and not delegate to a zealous executive branch.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today at long last, because of Congressman
John Murtha's leadership and persistence, the House finally has the
chance to go on record in favor of clear procedures for dealing with
prisoners and against torture.
In September, 29 retired military officers including General Joseph
Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, and our former colleague Ambassador
Pete Peterson, sent a letter to Senator McCain in support of the
amendment that is the subject of Mr. Murtha's motion to instruct.
The officers state the case against mistreatment of prisoners
succinctly: ``The abuse of
[[Page H11582]]
prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S.
service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to
the values Americans have held dear for generations.''
The Senate responded by adopting the McCain amendment by a vote of 90
to 9. I hope the House will vote in equally strong numbers.
Our troops were sent to war in Iraq without many of the essentials
needed for their effectiveness and their safety, including a standard
of conduct for the treatment of detainees.
We have seen, to our great shame and regret, the consequences of this
lack of clarity. At Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, at Guantanamo,
and in Afghanistan, allegations and evidence of detainee abuse have
damaged the standing of the United States in the world.
Congress should have made it a priority to get to the bottom of the
prisoner abuse scandals so that those responsible, regardless of their
place in the chain of command, were held accountable and corrective
actions taken. That has not been done.
We must heed the requests for assistance from our soldiers in the
field who, in the absence of clear limits on permissible treatment are
left in an impossible position, are forced to assume all of the risks
and shoulder all of the blame.
The United States has long been bound by international agreements
prohibiting torture. That we even find it necessary to make the
prohibition against torture more explicit is the result of the Bush
administration's legal interpretation that these long-standing
prohibitions apply only to persons on U.S. soil.
Torture should not be employed as an interrogation technique by the
United States for two simple reasons: it doesn't work and it is wrong.
We can not rely on information obtained through torture, and even if we
could, the cost is too high.
The values that define our country--the values that our men and women
in uniform are called upon to defend sometimes at the cost of their
lives--are antithetical to the use of torture. The American people are
much better than that. Our struggle with the forces of international
terrorism is as much a battle of ideas as a battle of arms. We weaken
ourselves when we compromise our ideals. Standing against torture helps
define the differences between the United States and those who offer no
message other than hatred and violence.
Adopting this motion to instruct is in the best traditions, and the
best interests, of our country. I urge my colleagues to approve it
overwhelmingly.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Last month, 64 Members of this body joined with me in signing a
letter urging the Appropriations Committee to say ``no'' to torture and
``yes'' to the McCain and Markey amendments as part of the Defense
Appropriations Conference.
The McCain amendment, which is the subject of this motion, will
prevent the use of inhuman interrogation practices.
The Markey amendment will prevent the use of funds in contravention
of the UN Convention Against Torture.
We need to send a signal to the administration and the rest of the
world that we will not dodge our treaty obligations to our
international allies under the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
We do not support the use of torture as an interrogation method.
Torture is morally wrong. Always. And without exception.
Not only is torture wrong, confessions obtained from torture are
useless. A prisoner will say anything to stop their own suffering.
If we do not approve both the McCain and Markey amendments, we will
set a precedent that torture is okay for all and open up our own troops
to face torture at the hands of our enemies. Our troops already face
enough risks. Shouldn't we protect them any way we can?
Furthermore, if we reduce ourselves to use the methods that we
condemn terrorists for using, we lose our moral high ground. We have
always been a beacon to the rest of the world on human rights and the
rule of law. Should we change hundreds of years of history for this
administration?
Reports of ``black sites'' where detainees in US custody are rendered
without a trace come on top of reports of prisoner abuse and even death
from the use of torture in U.S.-run prisons such as Abu Ghraib.
We criticize countries like Syria and Uzbekistan even as our CIA
secretly sends detainees to be interrogated by the secret police of
these very same human rights violators.
It seems obvious, that as a civilized nation, we should not fund
torture, use torture as an interrogation tool, or ask other countries
to torture for us, yet, for reasons beyond my imagination, we are still
discussing this arcane, abhorrent practice today.
The adoption of the McCain and Markey amendments is an important step
towards both restoring our nation's reputation for respecting human
rights and preventing shameful abuses similar to those that occurred in
Abu Ghraib.
We can not tolerate torture by any U.S. official. It is blood on all
of our hands, on our countries good name. I support the McCain and
Markey amendments and urge the conferees to do so as well.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
language to instruct conferees offered by my esteemed colleague from
Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Defense, Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Speaker, my support for this language hinges on three fundamental
points: torture is not effective; torture does not further the security
interests of the United States; and our use of torture adds to the risk
that United States military and civilian personnel could be subjected
to torture themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for eight years; four of those years as the ranking
member. I appreciate the value of good, reliable intelligence. In fact,
I expect that we all have a greater appreciation for good intelligence
in light of what we have learned about the situation in Iraq since we
toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. It was just this morning in
an address at the Woodrow Wilson Institute that President Bush, in
describing the decision to go into Iraq said that ``it is true that
much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.''
Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that torture was the root cause of our
incorrect intelligence assessments in early 2003. My point is that our
nation needs the best intelligence that we can get. The intelligence
community and our military recognize that torture and abuse are not
effective methods of interrogation. We must not allow cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment to be used if for no other reason than that
they yield poor results.
Mr. Speaker, my second point is that the use of torture does not
advance the security interests of the United States. We are in a global
war on terror. This is a war that is going to be waged on many fronts
around the world. As much as it is a military conflict, the global war
on terror is a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the
world. If our nation is to remain the recognized leader in the cause of
freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we must live and abide by the
principles and laws to which we have committed ourselves. If we do not
send a strong message to the world that we will not engage in torture,
we undermine our very security by giving terrorists ammunition to use
in furthering their aims.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if we do not renounce the use of torture, we
put our own soldiers and citizens at risk of being subjected to these
very measures. We cannot allow any perception that we support torture,
if we are to call for the world community to resist its use against our
own people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the members of the House to support the language
that makes it clear to the world that the United States will not use
torture.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
for instructing conferees on the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill to
include the amendment by our colleague in the Senate, John McCain. This
provision would simply provide for uniform standards for the
interrogation of persons under the detention of the Defense Department
and a prohibition on cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or
punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government.
Senator McCain knows the ravages of war and devastating effects of
inhumane treatment at the hands of an enemy. He and other American
soldiers during the Vietnam War were subjected to terrible treatment
that no human being ought to endure. In recent floor remarks, Senator
McCain explained that during his time in captivity he and his fellow
American soldiers drew strength from knowing that the institution to
which they belonged, the U.S. military, and the country they served
stood for the highest of principles and ideals. They believed that the
U.S. would never treat prisoners of war the way that they were being
treated.
Noone would disagree that ``torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading
treatment'' is unjust, but there is clear evidence that it is also
ineffective. When put under extreme levels of pain or duress during
interrogation, a detainee is more likely to say anything to stop the
pain, regardless of its accuracy. Moreover, our own cruel treatment of
others legitimizes the torture of American citizens. Look no further
than the desecrated bodies of American citizens and soldiers killed in
Iraq for tragic evidence of this reaction. Furthermore, torture and
inhumane treatment aids in the recruitment of terrorists and fuels
further terrorist activity.
As members of Congress, we have the Constitutional obligation, under
Article I, Section 8, to speak out on this issue and others
[[Page H11583]]
related to treatment of foreign detainees in war. We also have a moral
obligation to oppose cruel and degrading treatment of human beings, and
a patriotic obligation to stand up for the honor of this country.
In the wake of the scrutiny and embarrassment that our nation has
endured following the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that we proclaim to the rest of the
world that this policy reflects the law of the land and the conscience
of our country. Providing our soldiers with clear, written guidance on
how to treat detainees not only protects their interests but
underscores the freedoms and values we cherish as Americans and that we
claim to be the reason we have gone to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and
other parts of the world.
Today, as a Congress we must respect and honor our nation, those that
risk their lives to serve it, and the high standards and ideals on
which it is based. Supporting the McCain amendment is not an issue of
political difference; it is an issue of national identity.
The McCain amendment is needed to close a loophole in current policy
that does not explicitly describe standards for foreigners held under
U.S. custody abroad. This amendment reiterates and clarifies our
existing policy that prohibits the use of torture, cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment by U.S. soldiers and agents who are detaining and
interrogating prisoners in the global war on terror, requiring that
they use the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual on
Intelligence and Interrogation.
I urge my colleagues to resist any efforts to accept a watered down
version of Senator McCain's language that would grant exceptions for
the CIA to conduct its own investigations of detainees in locations
overseas that are independent of the Army Field Manual. Such a move,
which apparently is being orchestrated by the Vice President's office,
would only defeat the intent of the provision adopted in the Senate and
cause further confusion among military and civilian service people
charged with detainee interrogations.
The Army Field Manual has been used as the standard for interrogation
guidance since it was established during the Reagan Administration. The
Manual does not cast any technique into stone, but changes with time
and includes techniques and descriptions that are classified so as not
to be uncovered by enemies.
In a sign of broad bipartisan support, the Senate overwhelmingly
approved the McCain amendment in a 90 to 9 vote. In addition, 28
retired military leaders, including General Shalikashvili, General
Hoar, and General Colin Powell, have supported legislating the use of
the Army Field Manual through the McCain amendment.
In today's global war on terror, men and women in the armed forces
are charged with the critical task of detaining and interrogating
prisoners of war and enemy combatants without clear instructions on
what is and what is not permissible. These ambiguities contributed to
the absence of standards that resulted in the degrading and inhumane
treatment that we, and the rest of the world, witnessed at Abu Ghraib
and what apparently occurred at Guantanamo at the hands of young and
ill-advised soldiers.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stained the honor of our
country and our military. I know that most of our constituents want to
amend these wrongdoings. In order to do this, and to help protect the
treatment of American soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war, we
must give our troops clear instructions on acceptable treatment during
detainment and interrogation, without equivocation.
Let us not shrink from the responsibility that stands before us; let
us rise as a united body to defend our principles, uphold our proud
traditions and articulate to the world what America stands for. I urge
my colleagues to express their support to Chairman Young to retain the
McCain amendment, without modification, in the conference agreement to
the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to
Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
There is no question that recent charges of misconduct at Guantanamo
Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons are obvious indications that there is
significant confusion in the field regarding the interrogation of
detainees.
Our soldiers and interrogators need to know exactly where the line is
when engaging prisoners and there should be absolutely no question
about what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
It is clear that any treatment that is cruel, inhuman and degrading
is unacceptable. Such treatment is clearly prohibited by the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and these
abuses are a direct violation of our government's treaty obligations.
The provisions included in the Senate version of the Defense
Appropriations bill simply ensure that persons under U.S. custody or
control in facilities outside of this country cannot be subjected to
treatment that would be deemed unconstitutional if it occurred in U.S.
territory.
I strongly support President Bush's efforts to defeat terrorism and
his explicit denouncement of torture is crucial to winning this
struggle. Backroom deals to blur the lines or allow exemptions for
certain government agencies undermine the very freedoms our soldiers
are fighting for around the globe.
It is our duty to provide clarity about the values and standards by
which America lives in contrast to our enemies. Now is the time for our
government to reaffirm our position as the world's leader on human
rights, and establish an unambiguous standard for the international
treatment of detainees.
Mr. Speaker, this provision has passed the Senate with broad,
bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to support this very
important motion to instruct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
Congressional Record: December 14, 2005 (House)
Page H11584-H11585
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2863, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Murtha
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp of Michigan). The pending business
is the vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 2863 offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308,
nays 122, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 630]
YEAS--308
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--122
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Everett
Feeney
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
LaHood
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marshall
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
[[Page H11585]]
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--3
Costa
Diaz-Balart, M.
Hyde
{time} 1849
Mr. GALLEGLY and Mrs. DRAKE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. McCAUL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
