[Congressional Record: March 11, 2008 (House)]
[Page H1503-H1514]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 VETO MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R.
2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence
and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government,
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections
[[Page H1504]]
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
(For veto message, see proceedings of the House of March 10, 2008, at
page H1419)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra). Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto.
This year, for the first time in 3 years, the Congress passed an
intelligence authorization act and presented it to the President. This
was something that had proved impossible for a Republican-controlled
House and a Republican-controlled Senate. In recent years, while the
bill passed the House, it never even got to conference. When I took
over as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I made passing an
authorization all the way through conference a high priority. It wasn't
easy, but I thought it was crucial that we revitalize the oversight
process, and I committed to getting an authorization bill not only
passed through the House but sent to the President.
The intelligence community, by its very nature, presents a very
difficult oversight challenge for Congress. This is why the
intelligence authorization bill is so critical. It is the culmination
of the committee's oversight activities conducted over the previous
year. Intelligence funding is one of the few areas where the law
requires funds to be both appropriated and authorized. Our
constituents, of course, are demanding that we weigh in on all the
important intelligence-related challenges that our Nation is facing.
This legislation goes a long way towards strengthening oversight of
the intelligence community, which the President seems to consistently
want to fight. That's why the President vetoed it. He wants the
authority to do whatever he wants, in secret, with no oversight or
authorization or without any checks and balances.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree. The Constitution gives us a role in
this process. We do have a say, in the name of the United States of
America, in what the intelligence community does. That's why we need to
override this veto.
This legislation enhances oversight in several ways. It requires
quarterly reports to Congress on the nuclear weapons programs of Iran
and North Korea. We learned a lesson from the experience in Iraq.
Congress must be careful and must be part of the process and a consumer
of intelligence to avoid being sold a bill of goods.
The act requires the CIA inspector general to audit covert activities
at least once every 3 years. Covert activities are historically where
our intelligence community runs into legal and policy trouble. An
independent CIA audit is one way to prevent problems that have
embarrassed our Nation and have eroded our moral authority.
The authorization act also requires detailed accounting to Congress
on the use of intelligence contractors. The use of contractors has
grown exponentially, and no one is asking critical management questions
about whether this is a good use of taxpayer money.
An important substantive provision of the legislation also requires
the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community to abide by the same
regulations that DOD follows in the context of interrogations. If it's
not permissible for soldiers in Iraq, where they face a life-or-death
threat daily, it shouldn't be permissible for a CIA officer or
contractor.
Mr. Speaker, if this veto stands, all of these important oversight
provisions will disappear. If we believe in strong oversight, we need
to override this veto.
In addition to addressing long ignored oversight issues, the
legislation is fundamentally the mechanism for authorizing funds for
the intelligence community. This legislation authorizes funds for the
full range of critical intelligence activities. It authorizes funds to
support counterterrorism operations to keep Americans safe today, and
it authorizes funds for the strategic intelligence investments to keep
Americans safe in the future.
Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, the Intelligence
Committee will be silent on these important authorization issues. Once
more, we'll have no authorization bill.
The bill also addresses some persistent management problems in the
intelligence community. It requires steps towards a multi-level
security clearance system to recruit more native speakers of critical
languages into our intelligence community. It takes important steps
towards creating a more diverse workforce to strengthen our ability to
collect intelligence all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, it's business as
usual. No new solutions, just the same old intelligence problems.
I have visited the patriotic men and women of the intelligence
community in the far corners and in the far reaches all over the globe.
They deserve our support. They are brave, they are competent, and, in
most cases, they are humbled to be doing the job to keep us safe. Many
serve our Nation behind the scenes and at great risk, without any
expectation of recognition or congratulations. For them, and for all
Americans, this is important legislation.
The intelligence community came to us for money, they came to us for
tools, and they came to us for new authorities. We gave them what they
asked for. The President, with his veto, is denying them those very
things simply because he wants no limits on his Presidential power.
So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the
President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the latest example of the complete and
utter failure of the Democratic leadership in the House to give the
intelligence community the tools that it needs to protect the American
people and our allies from radical jihadists who have sworn to wage
holy war against freedom in order to impose a radical religious
tyranny. I urge my colleagues to oppose this override of the
President's veto.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are finding out how
tough it is to pass legislation in the intelligence area. But the
lesson they need to learn, this is about national security, and
national security issues need to be done on a bipartisan basis, can not
be done on a purely partisan basis.
The debate on this authorization bill is not about a single issue, as
some would have you believe. It is about the need to ensure that we
give the right tools to our intelligence professionals in this time of
enhanced threat. What we should be talking about today is improving
this bill so that it can have broad bipartisan support.
But we also ought to be talking about FISA, FISA modernization. That
is the vote that this House should be considering. That is the tool
that our intelligence community has said that they need to keep America
safe. That is the tool that, on a broad bipartisan basis, the model for
how we should be doing legislation in this area. It's how they did it
in the Senate, 68 Senators on a bipartisan basis saying we need to do
FISA reform. We need to do it to keep America safe, to keep our
homeland safe, to keep our troops safe, to keep our embassies and our
personnel overseas safe, and to make sure that we also have the tools
in place that so many of our allies rely on to keep them safe.
But no, once again, this House moves in a partisan basis. It's been
almost 25 days now that the leadership on the other side of the aisle
has refused to even bring up for a vote FISA modernization. Each and
every day, our capabilities in this area erode. One of the most
important and one of the most successful tools that we have used to
keep America safe over the last 7 years is slowly eroding. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not even allow it to
come up for a vote.
The United States continues to employ tough antiterrorist programs
because the radical jihadist threat did not end with 9/11. One only has
to listen to the statements by bin Laden, his deputy, Zawahiri, to
understand the seriousness of this threat, its global implications, and
the determination of radical jihadists to strike the American homeland.
[[Page H1505]]
But instead of doing a bipartisan, national security issue, we
continue to move down the path of partisan politics. The majority
leadership of this House refuses to see or hear the continuing threat
from radical jihadists. Even more troubling, the majority refuses to
recognize that tough antiterrorist tools employed since 2001 have
protected this country from terrorist attacks.
{time} 1730
Instead, some have distorted anti-terrorist programs as threats to
the American people rather than tools that our intelligence agencies
are using to protect us from threats of radical jihadist terrorism.
Instead of helping to strengthen anti-terrorist tools, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have established a clear patent of trying
to undermine and erode them, undermining and eroding the very type of
people that we should be trying to help with this bill, the men and
women who risk their lives each and every day in the intelligence
community to keep America safe.
There is no better example than the outright refusal of the majority
leadership to allow a straight up-or-down vote on bipartisan FISA
modernization legislation.
Again, this is a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, clearly
supported by a majority of this House. There's ample reason to be
concerned about this abuse of the majority's powers. I'm far more
concerned at the impact that these actions are continuing to have and
the capabilities of our intelligence professionals to protect our
country, our people, and our allies from attack.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back on point by yielding
3 minutes to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman
of the Armed Service Committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the
chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and a very valuable
senior member of our committee, the Armed Services Committee.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2082. This bill makes us safer from
terrorists and other adversaries in a number of ways: the bill makes
critical investments in human intelligence, counter-terrorism
operations, counter-proliferation, counter-intelligence, analysis and
language skills.
In addition, Chairman Reyes' conference report includes a provision
which requires that all interrogations conducted by intelligence agents
and contractors comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Our
military already has raised its standards.
Since September 2006, all interrogations which are conducted by the
men and women in uniform are conducted by non-military personnel on a
detainee who is otherwise in custody of the U.S. military and must
provide and must abide by the Army Field Manual. The manual
specifically prohibits eight interrogation techniques, including
waterboarding. Waterboarding is the technique which originated during
the Spanish Inquisition and makes the person who is being interrogated
feel as though he is drowning.
One of the wisest of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, once told
us: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' But that's where
we find ourselves on this issue.
All of the very senior civilians in the administration continue to
waffle on whether waterboarding continues and constitutes torture or
cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment. Our military has stood up
against this widely condemned practice. Our military understands the
impact of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.
Our military also appreciates that approved interrogation techniques
that are not cruel and inhumane or degrading have provided valuable
intelligence which has helped captured terrorist kingpins and foiled
terrorist attacks against our country as well as our allies. The sooner
that we reclaim our moral authority in the world by clearly
articulating which techniques we find to be abhorrent, regardless of
the nationality of the interrogator, the sooner we can better protect
our homeland and our folks in uniform who are in harm's way.
I strongly encourage all of my colleagues in this body on both sides
of the aisle to strengthen our national security by supporting this
very fine bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a
member of the committee from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and in
opposition to overriding the President's veto. I think it's fine for us
to stand up here on the floor and make all of the speeches we want
about what the administration has or has not done that we like; there
are some of those criticisms of the administration that I might well
agree with about what they've done in the past. But I think it is a far
different thing to stand up here and argue that we should put into law
a measure that ties the hands of the professionals we expect to keep us
safe.
This bill ties the hands of our national security professionals in a
number of ways. One way is that it does not update the FISA law, which
may well be the most important single thing the intelligence community
does today that helps keep us safe. And, in fact, as the gentleman from
Michigan noted, we are nearly 30 days beyond the expiration date of the
Protect America Act; and every day that goes by makes us more
vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
A bipartisan compromise in the other body garnered 68 votes, and yet
we can't even have the leadership of this House bring it up for a vote
to be considered so that each individual Member can exercise his
judgment or his or her judgment or conscience in how they vote. If that
measure had been rejected by the House, it would be one thing; but to
never allow it to come up means that the leadership of this House
insists on tying our hands, preventing our national security
professionals from having the tools they need to do the job. I think
that's inexcusable.
This measure before us also ties the hands of our national security
professionals by limiting the interrogation techniques they can use,
and even more than that, by broadcasting to the world the only
interrogation techniques which can be used. It's like giving al Qaeda
the training manual that they need to prepare their people for. And I
know that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just spoke. I
wonder if he would be in support of just sending our battle plans out
to any potential adversary saying this is what we are planning on
doing. You all go ahead and get ready for it. We will tell you in
advance what our intentions are. That's essentially what this bill
does.
And I note, Mr. Speaker, a writer, Stuart Taylor of National Journal,
last December put the scenario pretty well. He says, Imagine we get
Osama bin Laden or some high-level lieutenant with the intelligence
reports that a massive new al Qaeda attack may be eminent. Here are the
questions all Members ought to answer when considering how they're
going to vote: Should it be illegal for CIA interrogators to try to
scare the person into talking by yelling at them? Should it be illegal
to threaten to slap them in some way? Should it be illegal to pretend
to be an interrogator from a different country? Should it be illegal to
turn up the air-conditioning so they are uncomfortably cold? Should it
be illegal to deny them hot food while giving them all of the cold food
that they want?
Because all of those things would be illegal under the provision
that's in this bill. It is not about waterboarding. It is about having
a guarantee of hot food, comfortable temperature, no sort of deception,
having no one raise their voice against you. Those are the protections
for the terrorists that are in this bill.
I think that's a mistake. I think it is a mistake to tell them what
we are going to do, and I think it is a mistake to take options off the
table like turning up the air-conditioning.
These provisions, not having the FISA modernization, limiting their
interrogation methods, treat our American professionals as the problem,
and that's the problem with this bill. It should be rejected.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, continuing on this parallel universe, I now
yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who
chairs one of
[[Page H1506]]
our subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community
Management.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our very distinguished, wonderful
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
We are here this evening for one reason and one reason only: it is to
override the President's veto of the House authorization for the
intelligence community. And the reason, the stated reason, and the
President said so, the reason he vetoed the bill is because he is for
torture. T-o-r-t-u-r-e. It's what the President said.
This is a very sad, dark moment for our country that a President of
the United States would remove all of the tools that we've provided for
the intelligence community in a post-9/11 world and say, Because you
don't allow torture, I'm not for the bill.
Now, the President's position is entirely inconsistent with our
Nation's history. The United States of America has long accepted that
torture is beneath the standard of a civil nation. In 1947, the United
States prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form
of water torture on a U.S. civilian. The military has frequently
prosecuted American military personnel for subjecting prisoners to
torture since the Spanish-American War.
Our Nation was able to win two world wars and defeat a rising tide of
communism with a torture prohibition in place. And I think that we can
defeat America's enemies today without lowering ourselves, without
allowing ourselves to become the organizers against us. That's what we
have done. And we have not only degraded ourselves but helped to chip
away at the magnificent credibility of our great Nation that people
before us provided, and now we stand on their shoulders. And a
President of the United States vetoes a bill because he stands for
torture. We should slam that door shut.
And the way we do it is by overriding this President's veto. There
isn't any room in our country for this. And for anyone to describe
these things as being sissies because you stand against torture, that
is really shameful. That's really shameful, with all due respect.
This is a tough position. It's the right position.
So I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto
because that veto was about torture.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this point in time, I would like to yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring another aspect for
sustaining the President's veto that hasn't been talked about yet.
When this bill was brought to the floor initially, there were some 26
earmarks in the legislation. First we were told there are no earmarks.
Then we had kind of a wild goose chase up in the intelligence room to
find if there were. We found out there actually were. Then we finally
got a list, belatedly. We got the list of earmarks, I think, about 5
hours after the deadline for us to submit a list of earmarks that we
wanted to challenge. How convenient was that?
And we were told, No, it is just procedural, but too late. You won't
be able to offer any amendments. We were told at the beginning of the
process this year that every earmark that was offered in a piece of
legislation in a conference report, in a committee report would be able
to be challenged on the House floor. That wasn't the case here. We had
20-some earmarks worth about $80 million that were never challenged
that still, to this day, cannot, have not, will not be challenged by
this House.
So that, for the process alone, we shouldn't go forward with this
piece of legislation.
These weren't just any earmarks. One, $80 million worth; and, two,
there were big earmarks like $23 million for the National Drug
Intelligence Center. This is a center that the President has been
trying to shut down for years because it doesn't coordinate efforts as
it should. It gets, I think, about $39 million in the underlying bill
and another $21 million in earmarked money in this piece of
legislation. That's $23 million in taxpayer dollars in this piece of
legislation. That's $62 million in taxpayer funding for an entity that
the President and the executive branch want to close down, but it
happens to be in the district of a particular powerful Member, so it
stays. Again, we weren't able to challenge that.
That led, as we all know, to an altercation on the House floor
between a few Members, a privileged resolution that was offered, but
still, that earmark remains. All of these earmarks that still haven't
been able to be challenged by the House remain in this piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if there was ever, ever a case study in why we need an
earmark moratorium, it is this piece of legislation that we are dealing
with right now. No matter what you do, the earmarks remain. We even had
a motion to instruct offered by my colleague from Michigan to take the
earmarks in this bill out, remove them because they haven't been
challenged, and they weren't brought to the floor in the proper manner.
{time} 1745
That motion to instruct passed with a vote of 249 votes in favor. A
sufficient number of Republicans and a significant number of Democrats
voted for that motion to instruct to take the earmarks out, but here we
are with this piece of legislation here again today, and every one of
those earmarks still remains. You can't take them out.
We have to have a moratorium on earmarks so we can address this
process. You can have good rules. And I commended the Democrats when
they put the rules in place in January of this year. I mentioned that I
thought that they were, in fact, a little stronger than what we, as
Republicans, had put there. Having said that, rules are only as good as
your willingness to enforce them, and the rules were not enforced here.
Again, this legislation came to the floor with earmarks that we were
never able to challenge, that came after the deadline when we were to
submit the list to challenge. And then the House acted, we acted to
address, and with a clear, sufficient majority said, let's take the
earmarks out. But still they remained.
I urge us all to sustain the President's veto of this legislation.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona that
this veto is not about earmarks; it's about torture.
With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt), who serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence
Oversight Panel.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee.
When Congress passed this bill last year, I lauded several of its
features, provisions aimed at attracting and retaining people with good
foreign language capability and understanding of foreign cultures, a
provision bringing speed to security clearance processes for new hires,
the provision directing the Director of National Intelligence to
establish a multilevel security clearance process, a provision
requiring the inspector general to review all covert action programs,
and a number of other things. Getting these things right is critically
important because intelligence is among the most important functions of
our government.
A good intelligence system can save lives by preventing war, or,
should war come, by helping to win the war as quickly as possible. But
a flawed intelligence system can be dangerous, as when intelligence is
manipulated so as to take America to war under false pretenses, or when
fearsome powers of the government are turned on its own citizens
without checks and balances. Indeed, it's because this President
opposes checks and balances on our intelligence system that we are
forced to have this veto override today.
Let's be clear, American personnel, civilian or military, should
never engage in interrogation practices that amount to torture. The
provision the President objects to would simply put the entire U.S.
Government under one standard for interrogating detainees, the Army
Field Manual. The heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI
have testified that the nontorture guidelines in this bill are adequate
for their people to follow in interrogation of dangerous people.
If the President were serious about restoring our reputation in the
world and about providing moral and legal clarity for all government
employees involved in the handling or interrogation of detainees, he
would never have
[[Page H1507]]
vetoed this bill. Providing that moral and legal clarity is our
constitutional obligation. And to that end, I urge my colleagues to
join me in voting to override the President's veto.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I am four for five on veto overrides of our
President, but this is not one of them.
This bill limits our intelligence professionals at a time when we
need more people in the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. The bill fails to provide tools to monitor foreign
terrorist communications when we should be monitoring more of them. And
it also provides less resources to our own intelligence community, not
more.
The bill also does have earmarks in which the committee delayed
publication. Senators McCain and Clinton and Obama all now support a
complete moratorium on earmarks this year, but this legislation does
not do that.
We not only hamstring our intelligence community by this bill, we
waste millions of dollars on no or low quality earmarks that have
little utility to the intelligence community. We should bring back this
bill without any spy pork.
Mr. Speaker, I still serve in the intelligence community. We all know
that torture is illegal, and we all read the papers and know that all
Republican and Democratic candidates for President are against
waterboarding. So, in January of this year, that will be over, but the
rest of the issues in this bill will not.
Does this bill hamstring our community? It does. Does it fund 26
items of spy pork? It does. And for these reasons, we should not pass
this flawed piece of legislation.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, again I would remind the gentleman that this
is not about spy pork; it's about torture.
With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois, a
valued member of our committee, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank our chairman for yielding me this time and
for his great leadership on this issue, and for making it clear that
this veto was about torture.
In December, I said that restrictions on the use of torture
represented a battle for the soul of our country. Because the President
chose to veto this critically important piece of legislation, that
battle continues today.
The way we treat our prisoners is a fundamental measure of our
character. It is what separates great nations with moral authority to
lead from other lesser nations.
The President's national security team has now publicly confirmed
that the CIA waterboarded detainees. Incredibly, President Bush and his
advisers insist that they have the legal authority to do so again and
that they don't consider it torture. These claims have damaged our
Nation's moral authority and credibility around the world.
There is a simple way to restore some of our moral authority. It is
in this bill in the form of a provision mandating that all intelligence
agencies and those under contract or subcontract with our intelligence
agencies comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation
guidelines.
The interrogation rules in the Army Field Manual have served us well,
but don't just take my word for it. Generals, intelligence
professionals, diplomats, religious leaders, and foreign leaders, many
of them our closest allies, have all spoken out against the use of
coercive techniques such as waterboarding.
Consider the words of Navy Rear Admiral Mark Buzby, Commander of
Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is already required to comply with
the Army Field Manual, who recently stated that ``we get so much
dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation
and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner.'' Or what
about the advice of the Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John
McCain, who, before changing his mind and joining with President Bush
to oppose this bill and with it Congress' effort to ban torture, stated
that the issue of interrogation was ``a defining issue'' and that
interrogation should be ``humane and yet effective.'' And that an Army
general in Iraq had told him that ``the techniques under the Army Field
Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they
need to do anything else.''
In December, Congress made its voice known and passed this critically
important bill. With one flick of his pen, the President tried to take
our voice way. I believe it is time to say once and for all ``no'' to
techniques like waterboarding, ``no'' to torture, and ``no'' to this
President's attempt to legitimize his administration's political legacy
at the cost of this Nation's moral authority.
I urge all my colleagues to join with me in voting to override the
President's veto.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that this debate is about something
that hasn't been done for 5 years. What we need to be talking about is
what we haven't been able to do for the last 30 days.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about a
technique and a procedure that hasn't been used for 5 years, but
they're unwilling to talk about the technique that enables us to
identify what terrorists may have planned for the United States.
They don't want to address giving the tools to Americans who work in
the intelligence community that have proven to be effective. They're
willing to give our playbook to al Qaeda, but at the same time they've
taken away our most effective tool, to try to determine exactly what al
Qaeda may be up to. It is probably the most glaring deficiency in this
bill, but there are many others.
It fails to provide adequate resources for human intelligence. The
earmarks we've heard about. It fails to constrain the size of the
intelligence bureaucracy. It fails to rationalize how we're going to
put the intelligence community together. And then, interestingly
enough, it continues the misplaced priorities.
We are unwilling to deal with FISA. We are unwilling to give that
tool to our intelligence community, but we feel that it's more than
appropriate to tell our intelligence community to go out and conduct a
formal assessment of ``national security,'' the national security
aspects of global warming.
Our intelligence professionals in the field need to be really
wondering what's going on in the House, where they've now watched us
for 30 days avoiding dealing with the tough issue that has proven to be
so effective in keeping America safe, and at the same time we're
arguing here, and the majority is arguing that, forget about
surveilling al Qaeda and radical jihadists, take your resources and
study national security aspects of global warming, although there's
many other agencies that already work on that.
So, shelve FISA. As a matter of fact, don't even talk about FISA.
Don't even bring it to the floor. Don't do any work on it. Don't put
any proposals out there. Have no bipartisan discussions on where we go
with FISA. Leave that on the shelf. Let our capabilities erode. Go out
and study global warming.
What are the priorities of this House? How are we going to keep
America safe when we, on one hand, handcuff our intelligence community,
and on the other hand, we're telling them go out and study the national
security aspects of global warming?
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, on this side, we believe that our very
capable and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community can
keep us safe without torture.
I now yield 3 minutes to the newest member of our Intelligence
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the fight against terror is, at one level, a military
struggle, but it is also, at its roots, a battle over hearts and minds.
On Sunday, we suffered a major setback in that battle when the
President of the United States vetoed legislation that would
unequivocally state to the world that we do not condone torture in any
form, in any place, under any circumstance. Instead, by appearing to
abandon the rule of law by appearing to step away from the Geneva
Conventions, by failing to renounce the use of
[[Page H1508]]
torture in the clearest of terms, we are only undermining our standing
in the world and endangering the lives of our very own men and women.
When the Attorney General of the United States recently testified
before the Judiciary Committee, he could not tell us if and when
waterboarding constituted torture. He even suggested that a
determination whether something constitutes torture depends on who is
being subjected to the technique and the desirability of the
information that is being sought. His testimony was murky. It was
ambiguous. It failed to establish any bright line for our personnel or
for the rest of the world. He could only say that if it were done to
him, well, then that would be torture.
Instead, the bright line standard, if there was one to be found in
his testimony, and the one that he asked us to hold up to the rest of
the world, was whether or not a harsh interrogation technique is part
of a program authorized by an attorney in the obscure Office of Legal
Counsel. I am deeply concerned about what this says to our own
personnel and about what it says to the rest of the world.
This is, indeed, no intangible loss, for the effects of this failure
of moral leadership may tragically be visited on those brave men and
women serving in our Armed Forces.
Who among us can fail to recall the opening ways of the Iraq war when
American troops had been captured and were paraded in front of the
cameras? We were disgusted with their treatment, and rightfully so. If
we hesitate, equivocate, or otherwise fail to ban the use of
waterboarding, how can we have any confidence that when American troops
are captured they will not be subjected to this form of torture? How
can we make the case that other nations or other enemies must not
torture because we don't torture? How can we win the battle for hearts
and minds if we surrender our most powerful weapon, the power of our
good example?
{time} 1800
Mr. Speaker, I urge the override of the President's veto.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Again, the debate is about a bill that the President has outlined in
his veto statement is deeply flawed, deeply flawed in the content of
what is in the bill as to what it directs the President to do and the
limitations that it places on the executive branch in being able to
conduct the war against radical jihadists effectively.
But it's also clear that the message clearly outlines the
deficiencies of what is not in the bill: the inability and
unwillingness of the Democratic leadership to bring to the House the
Senate-passed FISA modernization bill; a bill that reflects the values
of the Speaker of the House; a bill that reflects the values of the
current Speaker of the House when she was on the Intelligence Committee
in 2001 when these discussions were under way that talked about what do
we need to do to give our intelligence community the tools that they
need to keep America safe so that we can better understand the plans,
the intentions, and the capabilities of al Qaeda and other radical
jihadists.
That is where the Terrorist Surveillance Program took root.
Bipartisan, the President, the leadership of the House and the Senate,
the leadership of the Intelligence Committees, and all of them united
in saying we need to give this tool, this Terrorist Surveillance
Program, to our intelligence community because it will allow us to
collect the information, the data, that we can use to keep America
safe. And that program was in place for over 5 years. It was in place
and it proved to be very successful. And now for 30 days, almost 30
days, we've been unable to use that tool.
Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Austin, Texas (Mr. Doggett), who was just asking me, As I traveled
around the world, have any of our fine men and women in the
intelligence community ever asked to be given the tool of torture? and
I said, No.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, with this veto, President Bush has once again failed to
safeguard our families.
And what is this ``waterboarding'' that the President so readily
embraces? It sounds a little like a cousin of skateboarding or
snowboarding. But, in fact, it is a new name for an old water torture
in which a human being is drowned. The drowning is controlled to force
a response, but waterboarding is simply a euphemism for torture by
drowning.
Now, President Bush is not the first Texan to think of this and to
believe that horrific wrongs can justify drowning of the culprit. An
earlier Texas waterboarder is not in the White House; he was sent to
the Big House. A Texas judge said that this waterboarding Texas sheriff
put law enforcement ``in the hands of a bunch of thugs'' that would
``embarrass a dictator.'' The sheriff was sentenced to 10 years. That
judge was right, and this administration is so very wrong.
America seems to have been sentenced to 8 years of Dick Cheney, who
claims that such water torture is a ``no brainer.'' ``No brainer''--
that sounds like a good way to describe how so many of this
Administration's policies have been made.
Torture is no proper tool in the arsenal of democracy. Torture is
foreign to our values, foreign to our history, foreign to our
religions, foreign to our laws, and it is foreign to our international
commitments. There can be no compromise, no middle ground. We must have
zero tolerance for torture.
If we abandon our American values, we lose who we are. We lose our
identity. We lose our pride as the greatest Nation in the world. And if
the Administration and its apologists continue forcing America to
abandon the rule of law and our long commitment to human dignity, we
will lose the war.
The use of torture, which President Bush's veto endorses, is not only
un-American; it is ineffective. That is one reason why the Army Field
Manual prohibits its use even when our military is in harm's way. As
General David Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, wrote to his troops last
year: ``Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history
shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''
I say follow our generals, not the Cheney ideologues, not the
apologists. Override this veto.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I applaud my colleagues for speaking with such passion. I wish they
had the same passion for addressing the tools that the leadership in
the intelligence community have said that they have needed, that our
intelligence professionals who are in the field have said that they
have needed to keep America safe. And this leadership has been
unwilling to bring it up for almost 30 days.
The tool that they want, the tool that they need, and the tool that
has proven to be so effective is the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
which is an updated version of FISA legislation. It takes the FISA
legislation, it moves it forward, and it updates it. But for almost 30
days, that tool has been eroding, putting our troops at risk, putting
our homeland at greater risk, putting other U.S. personnel who are
oversees at greater risk, and putting our allies who depend so often on
the work of our intelligence community, putting them at greater risk.
As al Qaeda in Iraq has said they want to attack Jerusalem, as
Hezbollah has said that they intend to retaliate for the death of
Mughniyah 3 or 4 weeks ago, as the radicals seek to destabilize the
regimes in the Middle East of modern Islamic countries, people that are
working with us in the war and the threat against radical jihadists,
our answer to them is we're going to curtail our intelligence
activities, and as a result, you will be at greater risk because we are
going to be of less assistance. We are not going to be able to give you
the intelligence that you've been receiving for the last 5 years
because our techniques are limited.
Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of
the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing
and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H1509]]
Mr. Speaker, for the last several years, Congress has been unable to
pass an intelligence authorization bill. This means that the
Intelligence Committee, entrusted with major responsibilities, a
committee on which I was proud to serve for 8 years, 4 of those as
ranking member, has been prevented from setting the direction for our
intelligence community.
Finally this year, Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate agreed on a
responsible bill and included in that responsible bill language to end
the so-called ``CIA loophole'' on interrogations. The President has
vetoed that bill and continues to insist irresponsibly, in my view,
that Congress shall not impose a legal framework around interrogation
policy. I strongly disagree and rise to override his veto.
Interrogations are a crucial tool in the effort to prevent and
disrupt attacks against America, and Congress should not abdicate our
obligation to legislate. Aside from stating the case, the Bush
administration has never offered proof that extreme interrogation
techniques like waterboarding are effective. I believe Senator John
McCain who says that waterboarding is torture, that such techniques do
not work.
Article I, section 8 of our Constitution requires Congress to
``regulate captures on land and water.'' This is our responsibility. We
have seen the erosion of respect for America that comes from scandals
like Abu Ghraib and incarceration without end at Guantanamo Bay. The
military and FBI conduct interrogations under clear rules. So why can't
the CIA?
Mr. Speaker, my message to the White House is this: Congress is a
coequal branch of government. The Constitution plainly gives us the
power to legislate interrogation policy, and we must use it.
Vote ``aye.''
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The Detainee Treatment Act, 2005, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and
degrading treatment, the standard found in the convention against
torture. It applies to anyone held by U.S. authorities. We have dealt
with that issue. We dealt with it in 2005.
What my colleagues don't want to talk about is they don't want to
talk about the other weaknesses in this bill. And it's clear, by what
their actions have been for the last 4 weeks, they don't want to talk
about FISA.
As my former ranking member has indicated, it is tough to pass an
authorization bill. It is tough to pass legislation. She and I worked
together and passed, with our colleagues in the Senate, an Intelligence
Reform Act, which in many ways has worked and in some ways we need to
go back and take a look at. But one of the things that we learned
through that process is to make it work, you need to do it on a
bipartisan basis.
The problem with this bill is that it is a partisan bill. It passed
the Senate with a very narrow majority. It passed the House on a
partisan vote. That's not how you're going to get it done. You're going
to do it the same way that the Senate has done the FISA bill.
But the interesting thing is the model for getting something done,
which is a bipartisan bill, which is what we did on intelligence
reform, we had Republicans and Democrats who came together to make it a
majority; and we also had Republicans and Democrats who opposed us, and
it was sometimes very painful. Now, when the Senate has gone through
that process and passed a bipartisan bill on FISA, the model, 27
Democrats, 41 Republicans coming together and modernizing FISA, the end
result is this leadership on the House side refuses to deal with it.
It's on every intelligence issue that we've dealt with in this
Congress.
When it comes to national security, when it comes to intelligence,
there is not an ounce of compromise. It's all about getting everything,
and that's why the President vetoed this bill, because it is not a
bipartisan bill. There are many weaknesses in it.
All the focus on their side is torture. Talk about FISA, which makes
a real difference to our men and women in the intelligence community
today.
Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The gentleman from Texas has 5
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, as we go through this process and we
talk about what's in the bill, the provision that we are talking about,
or at least the other side is talking about, is a provision that was
dropped in in conference. It came from the Senate. It didn't come from
the House. We ought to follow that model. Follow the leadership.
It's interesting, we follow the leadership here when it's a partisan
vote coming from the Senate; but when it's a bipartisan effort from the
Senate, the leadership on the Democratic side will not respond and will
not follow.
{time} 1815
On this bill, we are going to sustain the veto. It is a flawed bill
through and through. It would be interesting for this House to do the
right thing, to have a vote on a national security issue, the
modernization of FISA, to bring that vote. I am very much afraid that
we are going to go home Thursday or Friday of this week and we are
going to go on a 2-week recess and, once again, we will not have dealt
with the modernization of FISA.
That means that we will go through a period of 6, 7, 8 weeks of
eroding capabilities, each and every day becoming more vulnerable to
radical jihadists and other groups who want to harm America.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, it
won't be interesting if this veto is sustained. It will be a sad day
for this country because it will be sustaining torture.
With that, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the
valued member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I joined my colleagues in writing to
the President urging him to sign this conference report. This
conference report contains a provision that mirrors legislation which I
authored with Congressman Delahunt, the American Anti-Torture Act, that
would ensure a single, uniform baseline standard for all interrogations
conducted by the U.S. intelligence community. I applaud the leadership
of Senator Feinstein and the other conferees for including this measure
in the report.
Since news of the mistreatment, and possible torture, of detainees in
U.S. custody first surfaced, Congress has debated, and legislated, on
the subject of the legal, and moral, limits on interrogation. Torture
is unworthy of the United States and its people. It places every
American, especially every American in uniform around the world, at
grave risk.
The United States has historically been a leader in the effort to
establish and enforce the laws of war and the conventions against
torture. The Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our
modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes
international norms of conduct.
We all understand the critical role that intelligence plays in
helping us achieve these goals. But torture and cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment, besides being contrary to our values, have proven
not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and
former members of the military have made it clear that torture doesn't
work.
That includes General Petraeus, who wrote an open letter that the
standards in the Army Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in
eliciting information from detainees.'' Lieutenant General Kimmons, the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, similarly stated that ``No good
intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. Any piece of
intelligence which is obtained under duress, under, through the use of
abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.''
Mr. Speaker, the President and this administration have repeatedly
said that America does not torture. But most intelligent people know
the word of this administration cannot be trusted. And to prove the
point, when asked to place those assurances into law, the
[[Page H1510]]
President refuses. Now Congress must act to override the President's
veto and hold him to his word.
And later this week, we will deal with FISA. And all the nonsense
spewed by the other side will be dealt with because we will again, as
we did last November, pass a bill which will give every tool the
administration says they need to them but will place it under judicial
and congressional supervision to protect our liberties as well as our
safety.
I urge support of this veto override to outlaw torture once and for
all.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself 2 minutes.
It is interesting to talk about waterboarding. It hasn't been done
for 5 years. It is interesting to talk about we are going to get rid of
cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. We did that in the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005. It is prohibited, prohibited on any person that
is held in U.S. custody. So it is easy to talk about those things.
It is time that the House start doing the hard stuff and the heavy
lifting. That heavy lifting has now been put off for almost 4 weeks.
And my fear is that we will leave without having resolved the issue
between the House and the Senate, and we will go away for 2 more weeks
because the House and the Democratic leadership refuses to do the heavy
lifting and refuses to do the hard stuff. They are willing to go back
and do the stuff that was done in 2005 and address issues that haven't
occurred for over 5 years. But when it comes to keeping America safe
and doing what is necessary and giving the tools to the intelligence
community to keep us safe, leadership of this House is unwilling to act
and is unwilling to do what is necessary.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland, a member of the leadership of this House, the
majority leader, and one that is proud to stand up against torture and
for the American people, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
In response to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, let
me read a statement from the President's veto message of March 8, 2008:
``My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular
interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding,
which is not part of the current CIA program.'' He doesn't say that it
will not be a part of the CIA program. He has very carefully worded,
``It is not part of the current program.''
That is why I tell my friend this legislation is relevant. That is
why, in my opinion, his Presidential candidate, although he seems to
have changed his mind, passed his own bill, which the President, of
course, signed and then had a signing statement that he wasn't sure
that he had to follow it, that torture was not the policy of the United
States of America. I agree with that. It's not. It should not be. But
we need to make a very clear statement that it is not. Why? Because the
rest of the world is looking at us and wondering what are the values
that this great Nation we respect so much values?
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the President could have made a clear,
unequivocal statement that this great Nation does not and will not
torture those in our custody. He should have signed this important
intelligence authorization conference report into law. But instead, he
vetoed it, because it requires all American intelligence agencies to
comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations.
Let us be clear: This veto was unfortunate and misguided. It
threatens to further degrade America's moral standing as others have
said, including Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State in this
administration. It threatens to undermine our credibility in the
international community and to expose our own military and intelligence
personnel to the very same tactics and treatment.
Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take
decisive action to detect, disrupt, and, yes, eliminate terrorists who
have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass
killings of innocent men, women, and children in an effort to advance
their twisted, demented aims. We can, we will, and we must prevail in
the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm
us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from
those who preach death and destruction and say that their ends justify
whatever means they may use.
During the current administration, we have seen the line blurred
between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And
there is no doubt, our international reputation has suffered and been
stained as a result. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well
known, as well as the administration's belief that the Geneva
Convention against torture is, and I quote, quaint. Let me repeat that
for my colleagues. The administration's advice that it got from counsel
was that the Geneva Conventions against torture is, quote, quaint,
close quote. I would suggest to you it is as relevant today as it was
when it was signed.
These incidents and others sully our great Nation's good reputation
and allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred. Requiring all
intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on
interrogation is an attempt by this Congress, passed by majorities in
both Houses, to repair the damage that has already been done.
Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have
been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as
both effective and consistent with our values.
Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the
Armed Forces in Iraq last May. I believe it has been quoted, but it
bears repeating:
``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned
torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the
enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are
illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor
necessary.''
General Petraeus went on to say:
``Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the
Army Field Manual . . . shows that the techniques in the manual work
effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''
Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of whether we must combat and
defeat terrorists. We must. However, 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.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote to override
this unjustified and deeply misguided veto.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield myself 1 minute.
The Detainee Treatment Act outlaws cruel, inhumane, and degrading
treatment. There seems to be a sense of urgency to do what we have done
and do it again. It is too bad that there is no sense of urgency to
give our individuals in the intelligence community the tools that they
need to keep us safe.
The Senate has passed FISA. We should do the same thing. And we
should do it before we go home. We need to start doing national
security issues in a bipartisan basis. The longer we continue going
down this path of making national security and intelligence issues
purely partisan, some might call them purely political issues, we risk
the security and the safety of the American people.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Intelligence Committee for his leadership on protecting the American
people. In addition to being Chair of the Intelligence Committee, he
has served for many years on the Armed Services Committee. He brings to
his position on Intelligence the commitment that we all have, to
protecting the American people, to building a strong military second to
none to do that, to protect the American people. He knows that force
protection is one of the main priorities of intelligence, to protect
our forces, and when they are in harm's way, to make sure they have the
intelligence to prevail.
[[Page H1511]]
Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made strengthening
national security and improving America's intelligence capabilities a
top priority. It is our major responsibility, to protect the American
people.
Our very first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, took the bipartisan 9/11
Commission recommendations off the shelf, as they had been in the
Republican Congress, and put them into law to better protect the
American people. We then began our efforts to strengthen America's
military, the readiness of which has been greatly depleted by the
President's failed Iraq policy.
To restore our military strength, we have expanded the size of the
Army and Marine Corps, passed legislation insisting that only fully
mission-capable forces be deployed, and funded essential equipment,
including armored Humvees.
Mr. Speaker, America's security depends on the strength of our
military as we all know, but also the quality of information gathered
and analysis provided by the 16 intelligence agencies that make up our
Nation's intelligence community. As someone who has served on the House
Intelligence Committee now as a member and ex officio for 16 years,
longer than anyone in the Congress, I understand that policymakers in
Congress and in the executive branch must be able to rely on accurate,
timely, and actionable intelligence. That is why this intelligence
authorization bill invests in human intelligence, counterterrorism
operations, and analysis. It is a critical step in protecting our
Nation. And the President should have signed it into law.
{time} 1830
Regrettably, President Bush vetoed these critical investments in our
intelligence capabilities because this legislation extended the Army
Field Manual's prohibition on torture to intelligence community
personnel.
The prohibition on torture that the President vetoed protected our
values, protected American military and diplomatic personnel, and
protected Americans by ensuring accurate intelligence. Our Nation is on
a stronger ground ethically and morally when our practices for holding
and interrogating captives are consistent with the Geneva Conventions,
when we do not torture.
We all have our views here about intelligence gathering, analysis and
dissemination; and, again, much of the focus is on force protection. So
I look to the words of those who have served in the military for their
view on this subject.
In the words of Retired RADM Donald Guter, a former Navy Judge
Advocate General, he says: ``There is no disconnect between human
rights and national security. They are synergistic. One doesn't work
without the other for very long.''
Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh
torture techniques also risks the safety of our soldiers and other
Americans serving overseas. In a letter to the congressional
Intelligence Committee chairmen, 30 retired generals and admirals,
including General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the U.S. Central
Command, the command that oversees our military activities in the Iraq
region, the Middle East and greater Middle East area, those 30 retired
generals and admirals, looking again to the voices of those who have
led in the military, stated: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of
our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the
use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by
the enemy against captured Americans.''
Many military officials and intelligence professionals have also
stated that torture is ineffective; it is unlikely to produce the kind
of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots.
I want to reinforce the message of my colleague, the majority leader,
Steny Hoyer, in quoting the words of General David Petraeus. As Mr.
Hoyer just stated, but I think it bears repeating, the words of General
David Petraeus: ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we
sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information
from the enemy. That would be wrong,'' General Petraeus said. He went
on: ``Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history
shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''
These leading military men and women and those of us who support this
legislation's ban on torture believe that we can and we must protect
America while preserving our country's deeply held principles.
In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not
only on our military might but also on our moral authority. Today, we
can begin to reassert that moral authority by overriding the
President's veto.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that you can use the words
``torture'' and ``waterboarding'' as though you were not on the
committee of jurisdiction knowing about it as an ex-officio at the time
it is to have occurred. I am shocked that this is going to be all about
a procedure or procedures that in fact the Speaker of the House had the
ability to know about and condoned for years. I am shocked that the
Speaker of the House would speak about David Petraeus, when in fact
David Petraeus has said publicly and privately: ``You know, on the
battlefield of Iraq, I can kill the enemy, but I can't listen to him if
he calls America.''
This today should be about what we haven't done. We haven't taken up
the Senate's FISA bill. We haven't dealt with the fact that we are in
danger every day, and as a member of the intelligence community, I know
just how damaging the absence of action has been.
This bill has become a partisan bill, and wrongly so. I call on my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix it and move on, rather
than complaining about something that the Speaker is well aware of.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute and
the gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REYES. Thank you.
I would advise the gentleman from Michigan I have one additional
speaker.
With that, I now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are five compelling reasons
why we should override the President's veto of this bill and sustain
the congressional ban on torture:
First of all, it creates a double standard between the military and
our intelligence personnel. The rest of the world won't recognize the
difference, and neither should we.
Secondly, it gives us faulty information. Somebody being tortured
will tell you whatever is necessary in order to stop the torture.
Thirdly, it jeopardizes our own personnel, because the enemy will
consider it a license to torture American prisoners.
Fourth, it is illegal, according to the Geneva Conventions.
Fifth, it is immoral, and thus it is un-American.
Our Founding Fathers believed that this Nation would be united by a
common set of values, that we would stand as a moral guidepost to the
rest of the world. This undermines that moral high ground, and that is
why this veto should be overridden.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues today to sustain the
President's veto. This is an ill-advised bill. This goes back to what
we did in the 1990s, ``bugs and bunnies,'' telling our intelligence
folks that it is time to focus your resources and your skills on
studying the national security implications of global warming.
There are many problems with this bill. But the sense of urgency that
we have in the intelligence community today is, as my colleague from
California pointed out today, we are going to tell al Qaeda exactly
what may happen. We are going to give them our playbook. And at the
same time we have limited our ability to listen to radical jihadists.
It is now 26, 27, 28 days since FISA, or the Protect America Act, has
expired. How many more days will my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle
[[Page H1512]]
wait before they take up this legislation from the Senate? Will it be
one more day? Will it be three more days? Will it be two more weeks?
Will it be two more months? How much greater do you want to increase
the risk to the homeland, to our allies, to our troops, before you act?
The Speaker of the House shortly after 9/11 agreed that we needed to
act. It is beyond me why she doesn't want to act now and why we don't
have that sense of urgency. It is time to bring FISA to the floor, and
it is time to sustain the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical bill for the intelligence community.
If you vote to sustain this veto, you are voting for torture with the
President. I believe we should stand with the men and women of the
community and override the President's veto.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to cast my vote to override
the President's veto of the ban on torture. This bill would have
prevented the CIA from engaging in acts of torture. The President
vetoed this bill over the provision that specifically extends to U.S.
intelligence agencies and personnel the current prohibitions in the
Army Field Manual against waterboarding and other torture.
The human rights violations perpetrated by the Bush Administration
against people detained by the United States have done more to
compromise this nation's security than to protect it. We can protect
our nation from acts of terrorism without compromising our values or
the Constitution.
The use of torture by U.S. intelligence agencies to gain intelligence
is repugnant on moral grounds. In addition, many experts agree that
information extracted through torture is often unreliable and
misleading. Moreover, as the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
staff, Colin Powell, has testified, torture will put our own troops at
greater risk of torture.
In 2007, General David Petraeus stated that torture is wrong and that
the Army Field Manual works. In an open letter to service members in
May 2007, General Petraeus stated, ``Some may argue that we would be
more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to
obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the
basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also
are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme
physical action can make someone `talk;' however, what the individual
says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying
the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . .
shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely
in eliciting information from detainees.''
At a February 29th news briefing to oppose the President's
anticipated veto, retired Lt. Gen. Harry Soyster, former Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated, ``Experience shows that the
Army Field Manual's approaches to interrogation work. The Army Field
Manual is comprehensive and sophisticated. It contains all the
techniques any good interrogator needs to get accurate, reliable
information, including out of the toughest customers. . . If
[individuals] think these [harsh interrogation] methods work, they're
woefully misinformed. Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It
produces bad intelligence. It ruins the [interrogation] subject, makes
them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility
around the world.''
Moreover, 30 retired military leaders have pointed out that failing
to prohibit harsh interrogation techniques endangers our men and women
in uniform. In a December 2007 letter, 30 retired military leaders
wrote, ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in
uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation
methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against
captured Americans. . . . The current situation, in which the military
operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the
CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and
unpractical . . . What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . .
. is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards
and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with
dignity and respect.''
Many retired military leaders have also pointed out that
waterboarding is clearly torture and is illegal. For example, Retired
Admiral Donald Guter, Judge Advocate General, wrote in a November 2007
letter, ``Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.
. . This is a critically important issue--but it is not, and never has
been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible
disservice to this nation. . . . Waterboarding detainees amounts to
illegal torture in all circumstances. to suggest otherwise--or even to
give credence to such a suggestion--represents both an affront to the
law and to the core values of our nation.''
Finally, the use of torture has weakened our national security by
eroding our moral standing and has cost us our ability to enlist the
cooperation and support of other nations in our fight against
terrorism, and places our military and diplomatic personnel at risk.
This practice must be stopped. Overturning this veto would be a crucial
first important step to restore our moral standing in the world. It is
imperative that Congress tells the world in no uncertain terms:
Americans do not engage in torture.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to overriding the
President's veto of H.R. 2082, the conference agreement on the Fiscal
Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.
As a former Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I
believe it is vital that we provide the United States intelligence
agencies with the tools and resources necessary to ensure our security.
Therefore, I strongly support funding in this bill for human
intelligence activities, intelligence analysis, and counterterrorism
operations. Furthermore, I support language in the agreement
prohibiting the use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the
U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. 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. In fact, I have
cosponsored legislation to require the anti-torture provisions included
in this conference agreement.
Nevertheless, I will oppose this bill because it fails to implement
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for reforming congressional
oversight of intelligence funding. In its final report, the 9/11
Commission concluded that: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening
congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.
So long as oversight is governed by the current congressional rules and
resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security
they want and need.''
Last year, the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a ``Band-
Aide'' to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence Oversight
Panel that has very little control over actual funding decisions. This
is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, its
report plainly states that ``tinkering with the existing committee
structure is not sufficient.'' In May of 2007, I offered a simple
amendment to the bill before us, calling for Congress to implement
these crucial recommendations--but it was prevented from being
considered for inclusion in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all
of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--even those that are difficult.
We will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an
effective committee structure capable of giving our national
intelligence agencies the oversight, support, and leadership they need.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this
vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence
Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization
when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether
we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or
whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the
President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the
use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the
United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this
prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those
in United States Government custody.
Mr. Speaker, we have all read the disturbing reports of individuals
apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States
Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and
later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German
citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by
U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was
said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many
more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest
of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon
which we pride ourselves.
My vote to override the President's veto is a vote to send a clear
message that I do not think the United States should be in the business
of torture. It is anti-American, immoral and counterproductive.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this
legislation was not a surprise but still very disappointing.
It was not a surprise because the President had clearly signaled his
intention to reject the bill's requirement that all intelligence
agencies follow the rules governing interrogation techniques followed
by our military, even though the bill also authorizes supplemental
funding for counterterrorism as well as funding for advanced research
and development funding to
[[Page H1513]]
help maintain our technical capacity for intelligence, to repair and
replace aging and inadequate power infrastructure, and to improve
training and education of linguists, analysts, and human intelligence
collectors.
But it was disappointing that President Bush refuses to agree to that
simple requirement, because the result is to signal to the world that
he refuses to recognize that the result will be to place every
American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk.
The United States historically has led in the effort to establish and
enforce the laws of war and conventions against torture. Indeed, the
Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military
effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of
conduct.
The importance of that leadership and the appropriateness of the
guidelines in the field manual were clearly recognized by Congress when
we voted to approve the conference report's provision extending the
field manual to the entire intelligence community--the provision to
which the President objects and which has prompted him to veto the
legislation. By extending the field manual to the intelligence
community, the legislation would effectively outlaw waterboarding and
similar coercive techniques. I support that because waterboarding is
widely and rightly viewed as a form of torture and the refusal to
renounce its use will result in greater damage to our national
interests than the possible benefits of its possible use in the future.
I think the case for overriding the President's veto was well made by
the Colorado Springs Gazette in a recent editorial pointing out that
``the use of torture blurs the line between civilized societies and
ruthless barbarians.'' As the editorial notes,
In the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those
tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the
United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable.
Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight
struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War.
Using torture undermines that moral authority.
It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of
torture tend to be military and former military people who
understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it
is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead
of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be
justified, the government should announce that America
doesn't do that any more--and mean it.
I agree, and that is why I will vote today to override the
President's unwise veto of this important legislation. For the benefit
of our colleagues, I am attaching the complete text of the editorial:
[From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Feb. 14, 2008]
The High Road--Forswearing Torture Gives U.S. Moral Standing
So it's out in the open now. Central Intelligence Agency
Director Gen. Michael Hayden admitted to the Senate
Intelligence Committee last week that the CIA used the
coercive interrogation technique known as waterboarding, a
form of simulated drowning, on three al-Qaida operatives in
2002 and 2003. The technique is widely viewed as torture,
which is prohibited by U.S. law and international treaties.
Hayden said it has not been used since 2003 but that the CIA
could use it again if approved by both the attorney general
and the president.
The Justice Department is currently investigating the
destruction of videotapes of the interrogations of two
detainees held in Thailand who were reportedly subjected to
waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques to
determine whether destroying the tapes amounted to
obstruction of justice.
Public disclosure of these incidents should lead to a firm
U.S. policy preventing government operatives from using
torture in the future. Perhaps the best thing about the
emergence of Sen. John McCain as the Republican presidential
frontrunner is that McCain, who was tortured by the North
Vietnamese while a POW during the Vietnam War, has expressed
his firm opposition to the use of torture by the U.S. He has
said that one thing that helped him endure his imprisonment
was the knowledge that our side doesn't engage in such
barbarity.
Torture is sometimes justified as the only way to extract
information from detainees when an attack is deemed imminent,
and Hayden said in 2002 and 2003 that everybody expected an
attack on the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But
most experienced interrogators say torture seldom if ever
produces reliable intelligence, that while other techniques
may take longer, they generally produce better information.
At a more fundamental level, the use of torture blurs the
line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians. In
the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted
to support or harbor them, the perception that the United
States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral
authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle
with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture
undermines that moral authority.
It is dismaying, therefore, that a day later White House
spokesman Tony Fratto was still saying that waterboarding
might be used justifiably in the future. It would have been
better to acknowledge that in the wake of 9/11 the U.S. used
coercive techniques, that one could understand the temptation
considering the circumstances and the lack of knowledge about
al-Qaida, but that we had renounced the practice.
It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of
torture tend to be military and former military people who
understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it
is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead
of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be
justified, the government should announce that America
doesn't do that any more--and mean it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the passage
of the bill on reconsideration will be followed by 5-minute votes on
suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 948 and House
Resolution 493.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 188, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
[[Page H1514]]
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Capito
Coble
Davis (KY)
Dent
Hooley
Kilpatrick
Mitchell
Oberstar
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Schwartz
Tancredo
Thompson (MS)
Woolsey
{time} 1901
Mr. FEENEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, I was detained at a
firefighters ceremony. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Personal Explanation
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 117 on H.R. 2082, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the bill will be
referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________
