[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2461-S2462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOLDS ON INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleague from Alabama,
Senator Sessions, alleged that I have a ``hold'' on the Intelligence
Authorization Act. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I know that in the heat of debate on the Senate floor, words can
sometimes come out faster than a Member might intend, so I harbor no
ill will toward my colleague. But in the interest of accuracy, I wish
to set the record straight.
Last autumn, many of us were shocked to read allegations in the press
of secret clandestine prisons operated around the world by the CIA as
part of the war on terror. Congress has a responsibility to perform
oversight in all things, including the intelligence community's conduct
in the war on terror. In discussing this amendment last fall, I said,
and I repeat today, no one is passing judgment on whether these alleged
facilities should be closed. We are simply saying that Congress--and
specifically the duly established intelligence committees of the House
and Senate--need to know what is going on.
On November 10, 2005, I offered an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act requiring the Director of National Intelligence to
provide a secret report to the Intelligence Committees of the House and
Senate on the operation, past or present, of these alleged facilities.
It would also have required a report on the planned disposition of
those allegedly held at these facilities and a determination as to
whether interrogation techniques at these facilities were consistent
with U.S. obligations under the Geneva Convention and the Convention
against Torture.
In debating this amendment, I was delighted to work with my
colleague, Senator Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, and his vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, to perfect
the text of the amendment so they could support it. It passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 82 to 9.
About 1 month later, the House of Representative voted 228 to 187 to
urge
[[Page S2462]]
House-Senate negotiators to include the amendment in their conference
report. The House Armed Services Committee, however, was concerned that
the amendment was beyond the scope of their jurisdiction and the
provision was stripped out in conference.
I turned then to the Intelligence Authorization Act and again worked
with Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller to prepare the amendment
anew for inclusion in that legislation. The amendment was identical to
the provision passed previously in the Senate and endorsed by the House
and was cleared by Senator Roberts for passage by unanimous consent.
But someone objected to the unanimous consent request to pass this
vital bill by voice vote. Since that time, the legislation has lingered
because someone doesn't want a vote on this amendment or the amendments
offered by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
I know my friend from Alabama voted against my amendment when it was
on the floor in November. I am sure he would vote against it again. We
can agree to disagree on this issue, but his assertion that I have
placed a hold on the intelligence bill is simply not true.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senator from Alabama,
Senator Sessions said that Senator Kerry and I objected to Senate
consideration of the intelligence authorization bill because we wish to
offer amendments.
In fact, neither Senator Kerry nor I have objected to this bill and
no other Democrat has objected to considering it. The bill is cleared
on the Democratic side. That means an unidentified Republican Senator
or Senators have placed a hold on the bill and are preventing the
Senate from considering it.
I do have two amendments to the bill. My first amendment would
require the administration provide to the Intelligence Committee with
the presidential daily briefs on Iraq from 1997 to the first day of the
Iraq war as part of the committee's investigation on the use of prewar
intelligence. I would certainly be willing to support a time agreement
allowing reasonable debate and a vote on the amendment.
My second amendment would guarantee that detainees held by the
intelligence community would be treated humanely, and that treatment
would be verified independently.
Apparently, to prevent debate on this very important issue, a
Republican Senator is willing to let the whole intelligence bill fail.
That's an outrage.
It's important for the Senate to approve the intelligence
authorization bill, and it's important for the Senate to get to the
bottom of the abuse of intelligence the administration used to justify
war.
____________________