Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, Madam Chair, I want to thank the

Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. It is a very straightforward amendment, and it's one that I think is very, very important because the CIA has been under such intense criticism over the last several months--maybe the last few years--that it's time to let them know and the people of this country know that we really appreciate what they're doing to secure the safety of this country.

What the bill does is:

It honors the Central Intelligence Agency for its contributions to the security of the United States and our allies;

It recognizes the Central Intelligence Agency's unique role in combating terrorism;

It praises the Central Intelligence Agency for its success in foiling recent terrorist plots and capturing senior members of al Qaeda;

It thanks the Central Intelligence Agency for its crucial support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;

It commends the men and women who gave their lives defending the U.S.--named and unnamed; and, finally,

It urges the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its dedicated work in the field of intelligence gathering in order to protect the people of the United States.

I believe that all of us would agree with everything that is in this amendment. But I'd like to add just a couple of things that I've been watching during this debate that really concerns me.

There is language in here that is going to, I think, have an adverse impact on the Central Intelligence Agency's agents who are out in the field and doing their job and are trying to protect us against the terrorists. You know, some of the things that they say may be abrasive or objectionable to some of the people they are interrogating. The way this language reads, it could be interpreted to mean that they are guilty of not following the intent of the law in dealing with the terrorists.

Also, there are prison sentences for people who are involved in terrorist or torturous activities such as ``waterboarding.'' I would like to point out to my colleagues, many of whom don't know this, waterboarding has been a technique that has been used in the training of U.S. Navy SEALs and our Special Forces people over the years.

Now, let me say that one more time. Waterboarding and other techniques have been used in the training of our Navy SEALs so they would know how to deal with an enemy if they were captured, and it's been used by Special Forces military personnel in their training. So it has never been considered torture by our own military personnel.

Now, we have three Navy SEALs right now that are being court-martialed, and they are being court-martialed because they captured an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah in Iraq. And this al Qaeda terrorist took four American contractors, tortured them, dragged them through the streets, burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge.

He also cut off the head of a leading person that was over there gathering news and information for the news media. This guy is really an out-and-out horrible terrorist. Now, when he was captured he was turned over to the Iraqi military for 2 days, and he came back and he said that he had been hit in the stomach and they split his lip, and because of that these three Navy SEALs are being prosecuted. They are being prosecuted in a court martial.

What kind of a message does that send to our Navy SEALs, to the people in the field who are capturing and fighting these al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists? What kind of a message does that send? We are trying to send the same kind of message to the CIA operatives who are out there trying to get information that will protect this country and protect the American people around the world against these people who want to destroy us and want to destroy our way of life.

It really bothers me, and I do appreciate the House approving this amendment that I have introduced. Obviously it's something that I think is very important. But, in addition to that, I don't believe we ought to be sending a message to the CIA or the Navy SEALs or our Special Forces men and women in the field that we are not going to back them up when they go out and get a terrorist or extract information from them that is vital in securing the safety of the people of this country.

One of the al Qaeda terrorists they are going to bring to New York. The main al Qaeda terrorist that was involved in the 9/11 attack, after he was waterboarded about 80 times, and he wouldn't give up information, he finally did. He said that there was an attempt going to be made to fly a plane into a building in Los Angeles. Had he not choked up and given that information, we might have lost another 2,000 or 3,000 people like we did on 9/11.

It just seems silly to me and crazy to me that we are not going to allow our intelligence-gathering operatives to do their job. We ought to be supporting them completely day and night in anything they do to protect this Nation.
[From the National Review Online, Feb. 25, 2010]

While You Are Distracted by the Summit, Obama Democrats Are Targeting the CIA
(By Andy McCarthy)

The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today's dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.''

The provision is impossibly vague--who knows what ``degrading'' means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I'll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute ``includes but is not limited to'' the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is ``degrading'' (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

``Waterboarding'' is specified. In one sense, I'm glad they've done this because it proves a point I've been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law. The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they've been saying is not true--waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA's enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute--only the CIA.

More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.

In any event, waterboarding is not defined in the bill. As Marc Thiessen has repeatedly demonstrated, there is a world of difference between the tactic as administered by the CIA and the types of water-torture methods that have been used throughout history. The waterboarding method used by the CIA involved neither severe pain nor prolonged mental harm. But it was highly unpleasant and led especially hard cases like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (i.e., well-trained, committed, America-hating terrorists) to give us information that saved American lives. The method was used sparingly--on only three individuals, and not in the last seven years. The American people broadly support the availability of this non-torture tactic in a dire emergency. Yet Democrats not only want to make it unavailable; they want to subject to 15 years' imprisonment any interrogator who uses it.

What's more, the proposed bill is directed at ``any officer or employee of the intelligence community'' conducting a ``covered interrogation.'' The definition of ``covered interrogation'' is sweeping--including any interrogation done outside the U.S., in the course of a person's official duties on behalf of the government. Thus, if the CIA used waterboarding in training its officers or military officers outside the U.S., this would theoretically be indictable conduct under the statute.

Waterboarding is not all. The Democrats' bill would prohibit--with a penalty of 15 years' imprisonment--the following tactics, among others:

--``Exploiting the phobias of the individual''

--Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions

--``Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care''

--Forced nudity

--Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them--not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, ``exploit his phobias'')

--Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)

--Exposure to ``excessive'' cold, heat or ``cramped confinement'' (excessive and cramped are not defined)

--``Prolonged isolation''

--``Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual''

Naturally, all of these tactics are interspersed with such acts as forcing the performance of sexual acts, beatings, electric shock, burns, inducing hypothermia or heat injury--as if all these acts were functionally equivalent.

In true Alinskyite fashion, Democrats begin this attack on the CIA by saluting ``the courageous men and women who serve honorably as intelligence personnel and as members of our nation's Armed Forces'' who ``deserve the full support of the United States Congress.'' Then, Democrats self-servingly tell us that Congress ``shows true support'' by providing ``clear legislation relating to standards for interrogation techniques.'' I'm sure the intelligence community will be duly grateful.

Democrats also offer ``findings'' that the tactics they aim to prohibit cause terrorism by fueling recruitment (we are never supposed to discuss the Islamist ideology that actually causes terrorist recruitment, only the terrible things America does to provide pretexts for those spurred by that ideology). These ``findings'' repeat the canards that these tactics don't work; that they place our captured forces in greater danger (the truth is our forces captured by terrorists will be abused and probably killed no matter what we do, while our enemies captured in a conventional war will be bound to adhere to their Geneva Convention commitments--and will have the incentive to do so because they will want us to do the same); and that ``their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.''

Unmentioned by the Obama Democrats is that officers of the executive branch have a solemn moral duty to honor their commitment to protect the American people from attack by America's enemies. If there are non-torture tactics that can get a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give us information that saves American lives, how is the use of them inconsistent with our values?

Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his ``phobias exploited.'' I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Burton amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate him wanting to honor the personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I have said many times on the floor, I have had the privilege of visiting with members of the CIA and members of their families, members of the CIA throughout the world under probably the most difficult of circumstances. I understand the hardships that they face.

Most recently, I was with family members and survivors of the Khost bombing, which illustrates the danger they put themselves in willingly to protect our country. I would also remind the gentleman that we should not mix and compare apples to oranges. There is a big difference between a training exercise that simulates waterboarding and waterboarding an individual for 183 times. That's a huge difference.

The other thing I would point out is that when the last administration decided to take us down that road, that enhanced interrogation techniques would be authorized and approved. There has been a great amount of disagreement in terms of the legal authorization of these techniques, considered torture by most anybody's standards. I would also remind us that the CIA did not have any expertise in waterboarding. They had to actually go out and contract DOD personnel to be able to acquire that technique. It puts them in a tough situation.

I will tell you what I hear from the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency. They understand the difference between politics and bad policy. They understand the difference between doing the kinds of things that they are expected to do to keep our country safe and responding to the kind of political spin that, unfortunately, we hear about their work.

But, the one thing that comes across when I hear from them is they appreciate the support that they receive from the Congress. They appreciate the fact that regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, we respect the work that they do.

We, despite all of the arguments that are proffered here in this great Chamber, in the final analysis they know that they have a job to do. They know that they have a duty to perform. They know that they are committed professionals and that they expect and deserve the support of every member of this Chamber. That's why I appreciate the gentleman's sponsoring this amendment.

That's why I think we ought to accept it. I accept it. I think we ought to leave it at that and leave the politics and leave the rhetoric and remind ourselves that the message we need to send them is that we support their work. The message we should send them is that we honor them for their service to this great country.

The message that we deliver to the families of those victims of the Khost bombing is that we will support them. We will have our differences politically, we will articulate those differences, but we will never stop supporting the great work that the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency do for all of us.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. HOLT

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 111-419.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Holt:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for your work in securing our Nation and bringing this piece of legislation to the floor.

The amendment that I am offering, Madam Chair, serves a twofold purpose. First, it allows us to fulfill our obligation to our returning combat veterans coming back and integrating back into civilian life. And it also recognizes the unique skill set that these veterans have that are absolutely perfectly suited for intelligence and national security work.

What I am asking for in this amendment is to make sure there is a level playing field for these warriors. A large number of our troops are coming back; and either through a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding, the security adjudicators are either revoking or denying security clearances for wounds that were received, either physical or mental--PTSD, and others--during the conflicts that they served in.

What this amendment asks for is it requires the intelligence community to educate security clearance adjudicators on the nature of these wounds. The purpose is to make sure that they have the best knowledge available to make informed decisions and give our returning warriors the opportunity to receive their clearances, to retain their clearances, and then go on to further serve this Nation in these critical capacities.

So I thank the committee for their work. The Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committee are all in support of this. I think it will go a long ways toward leveling the playing field and allowing this Nation to use the incredible skills and resources that those wounded warriors bring back, but still have the capacity to serve.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I agree with what the gentleman said about our wounded warriors and how we ought to be giving them all the support that we possibly can, but the reason I took this time in opposition is because the chairman and I couldn't reach an agreement to discuss one of the provisions in the bill.

I sincerely feel, Madam Chairman, that we are endangering our capability of getting information from terrorists because we are limiting our CIA and our intelligence officials with this legislation and these procedures that they can use to elicit that information. I know there are some differences of opinion, and I know we have in our hearts the best security that we can think of for the American people, but the one thing that really, really bothers me is we're telling CIA officials--and some of our military people in the field, not with this bill--but we are telling a lot of our intelligence officials and people in the field that they have to be very, very careful and walk on eggs when they are trying to get information from a terrorist, al Qaeda or Taliban terrorist, to make sure that we aren't violating or torturing them in any way.

The American people certainly don't want torture, and there is a big difference of opinion on whether or not water boarding, for instance, is torture. But the fact of the matter is if we have another major attack like the one we had on 9/11, the American people are going to come down like a ton of bricks on the people in this House that put restrictions on our intelligence-gathering capability. They're going to say, why didn't you do whatever it took to secure the safety of the people of this country? And because we are putting this language in this bill, we are saying to the CIA and the other intelligence agencies, you've got to be real careful; you've got to make absolutely sure you don't do something that might get you in trouble and might even put you in jail.

And when you say things like that to the people that are out there in the field risking their lives, what you do is you intimidate them, maybe not intentionally, but you intimidate them and you stop the possibility of getting all the information that we need to protect this country.

Now, I know there is a disagreement; I just talked to some people on the other side. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 80-something times, I think, or something like that; and when he first started out, he said, well, you'll find out what's going to happen. And later, after he was water boarded, he said, yes, there was going to be a plane that was going to fly into a building in Los Angeles. Well, that plane, had it flown into a building in Los Angeles, might have killed another 2,000 or 3,000 people.

And so the only reason I came here is to just say, let's don't break the legs of our intelligence officers who are trying to protect this country. It's just too important. We ought to be doing everything we can to back them up to make sure this country is safe. Our intelligence people are telling us right now we're likely to have another attack within the next 6 months or 1 year. So we ought to be giving every intelligence agency and every officer we possibly can all the support they need to stop that.

With that, I thank you very much for yielding and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. I hope I have the gentleman's support on this bill, providing the trained and courageous veterans who are returning home. We are not asking for preferential treatment. What we are asking is that our adjudicators be clearly informed what these combat veterans have gone through, making sure we are able to bring them back, place them in their positions if they choose to continue to serve this Nation. I would ask for the support of this body on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. SCHAUER

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 111-419.

Mr. SCHAUER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Schauer:

Insert after section 354 the following new section:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source