[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28347-28351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2863, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII 
and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for 
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Murtha

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Murtha moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2863 be instructed 
     to agree to the provisions contained in--
       (1) section 8154 of the Senate amendment, relating to 
     uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the 
     detention of the Department of Defense; and
       (2) section 8155 of the Senate amendment, relating to 
     prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
     punishment of persons under custody or control of the United 
     States Government.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. The words ``torture,'' ``cruelty'' and ``abuse'' elicit 
images of draconian and brutal dictatorship. These words are reserved 
for the worst of human rights offenders. It should never include the 
United States of America.
  The United States of America and the values we reflect abhor human 
rights violators and uphold human rights. No circumstance whatsoever 
justifies torture. No emergencies, no state of war, no level of 
political instability.
  According to Secretary Powell, in his letter to Senator McCain in 
support of the Senator's amendment, ``The troops need to hear from 
Congress, which has an obligation to speak to such matters under 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.''
  We have irrefutable evidence of widespread use of unlawful 
interrogation techniques by American interrogators at Abu Ghraib and 
other locations. This has been absolutely disastrous to our credibility 
and our reputation as a Nation that was built on the sanctity of 
individual rights.
  We have a legal and moral and ethical obligation to uphold the values 
of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against 
Torture.
  Furthermore, torture, cruelty and abuse are not effective methods of 
interrogation. Torture may not yield reliable actionable information 
and can lead to false confessions. And we have an example of that not 
long ago, prior to the war.
  Torture may not yield information quickly. Torture does not advance 
our goals. It does not help us win the hearts and minds of people it is 
used against. It did not aid the cause of the Soviets in Afghanistan 
and the French in Algeria.
  Torture has a corrupting effect on the perpetrators. It has rarely 
been confined to narrow conditions. Once used and condoned, it easily 
becomes widespread. The same practices found their way from Guantanamo 
to Afghanistan to Iraq.
  Torture is not only used against the guilty; it often leads to 
unintentional abuse of the innocent. We cannot torture and still retain 
the moral high ground.
  Torture endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the 
enemy. Torture brings discredit upon the United States.
  There can be no waiver for the use of torture. No torture and no 
exceptions.
  Gray areas in rules, lack of direction, training and supervision from 
superiors, lack of standards and clear guidelines from leaders are 
dangerous and led to the abuse at Abu Ghraib and other locations. 
During times of war, clear guidelines governing the treatment of 
prisoners is imperative, especially when due to the lack of manpower, 
people are put in jobs with little or no experience or people are put 
in jobs that are not appropriate. The alleged ring leader at Abu Ghraib 
had a history of domestic abuse and therefore, by law, could not carry 
a firearm in the United States. Yet, he was a prison guard at Abu 
Ghraib, and he was not suited for handling prisoners.
  It is now evident that abuse of prisoners took place because of lack 
of supervision, that our troops were given ambiguous instructions 
which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what was 
allowed in the Army Field Manual.
  The definition of abusive treatment cannot be a matter of 
subjectivity and ambiguity.
  The administration confused matters further by declaring that U.S. 
personnel are not bound by the Geneva Convention when interrogating 
non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil.
  Gross inconsistencies resulted: We followed the spirit of the Geneva 
Convention in Afghanistan, the letter of the Geneva Convention in Iraq. 
We had one set of rules for the prisoners of war, another for the enemy 
combatants; one set for Guantanamo, another for Iraq; one for the 
military, one for the CIA who were at times operating under the same 
roof.
  America does have clear guidelines as set forth in the Army Field 
Manual. A number of those who were involved told me they would ask 
their superiors and lawyers, do you think this was torture? Do you 
think we violated the Geneva Convention? The answers they got differed, 
as if something this important was a matter of opinion.

[[Page 28348]]

  In the case of one of these people, Captain Fishback, I believe he 
thought some of the troops clearly violated the Geneva Convention but 
that the administration and Congress knew, ``as if there was a special 
hand shake.'' In other words, when he came to see me, he thought we had 
something to do with this. He said they were not clear, and they 
thought that we were just winking at the regulations. And this is 
dangerous. We cannot tolerate a practice of saying one thing and doing 
another.
  Using the argument terrorists do much worse, that al Qaeda does much 
worse is a horrifying rationale. As Captain Fishback argues, ``since 
when did al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the 
morality of the United States?'' And that is a quote from Captain 
Fishback.
  Captain Fishback wrote to Senator McCain, ``If we abandon our ideals 
in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never 
really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even 
the smallest part of that idea that is America.'' And Captain Fishback 
was in Afghanistan for 18 months and in Iraq.
  We cannot protect freedom abroad or at home while degrading our 
society and its political and legal systems. We cannot do it while 
trampling all over the values which have made this country strong, 
which define us all as Americans. These values do not belong to any 
party. They are not Democrat or Republican. They are American values.
  We cannot allow our Nation's moral and ethical standards to drift 
away from the Constitution. Congress is obligated to speak out. 
Congress cannot give its power to the Executive Branch. Congress is the 
people's branch.
  Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, ``How necessary was the care of the 
Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our 
constitution so that no errors of reasoning or speculation might lead 
us astray from its observance in practice.''
  He also said, ``Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on 
individuals.''
  And I have to say this. War is about killing. For those sent to fight 
an enemy, that killing will stay with them for the rest of their lives. 
It is in the faces of friends lost, in the shadows the soldiers feel on 
their souls for having killed. This is the nature of war.
  But when torture becomes a part of war, when torture is condoned, if 
we allow torture in any form, we abandon our honor and the last shred 
of humanity. Visions of abuse and torture chill our conscience and sear 
our souls. Torture scars not only its subject; it scars those who 
perpetrate it and those who are witnesses to it.
  Most military leaders know that allowing torture subjects our 
servicemembers to similar acts if captured. We in Congress must never 
forget this because we are charged with sending our sons and daughters 
into battle. This responsibility is doubly heavy today when America is 
living in a time of great uncertainty and two wars.
  In the case of Iraq, we are unsure of the war's rationale and where 
it will lead us. In the war against terror, we are still struggling to 
fathom our enemy and are troubled by his tactics.
  It is all that more important now that we remember that America 
stands for the honor of those we have sent to fight this war.
  This amendment would restore our credibility, honors our war fighters 
and affirms the value of this great country, the values that belong to 
the United States of America.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important that we make it very clear 
that we are opposed to the use of torture, period. As a matter of fact, 
the basic law of the land already says that we are opposed to torture. 
And so I have no problem with the gentleman's motion as it relates to 
that issue.
  But I must tell you that, Mr. Speaker, I am really offended by a 
provision in this amendment that we are talking about that guarantees 
to terrorists, and understand who those terrorists are, that guarantees 
to terrorists the same rights under the Constitution of the United 
States that our law-abiding constituents enjoy. That offends me. And I 
just do not think that we ought to be giving a terrorist the same 
protection of our Constitution that you and I have. Not just part of 
our Constitution, not just one or two amendments or two articles or 
sections, the entire Constitution would apply to those terrorists. So 
that does offend me. But I understand that the President's office is in 
serious negotiations with Senator McCain, and we hope that a reasonable 
agreement on this issue will be reached so that we can get on with this 
important Defense Appropriations bill that we in the House passed 6 
months ago.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of 
my friend and colleague Representative Jack Murtha's motion to instruct 
conferees on the defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. Murtha's effort would retain vital language prohibiting torture 
of prisoners in U.S. custody wherever they may be held.
  Mr. Murtha's motion would ensure that the final version of the 
defense bill contains vital language offered by Senator John McCain and 
by Congresswoman Jane Harman and myself here in the House.
  The McCain amendment would prohibit the Defense Department from using 
any interrogation practices other than those listed in the Army Field 
Manual on Intelligence and Interrogation, and would reinforce the long-
standing ban on the Federal Government engaging in cruel, inhuman, and 
degrading treatment throughout the world.
  Such clarity in treatment of detainees is vitally needed as 
continuing revelations of abuse of prisoners in our custody damages the 
reputation of our Armed Forces abroad, undermines the trust of our 
allies, and threatens the lives of U. S. service men and women who 
might be captured by the enemy.
  In addition to providing guidance to our troops, this language, by 
forbidding abuse wherever it may occur, gets at the heart of the issue 
of ghost detainees, prisoners kept and interrogated by the CIA in 
countries that have not signed on to the Geneva Conventions.
  Major General Taguba called the CIA's practice of holding ghost 
detainees ``deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine and in violation of 
Army law.''
  The recent effort led by Vice-President Cheney to eliminate language 
in the bill to constrain interrogations wherever they may occur is 
misguided and will endanger our troops.
  I agree that our post-9/11 world will never be what it was 
previously, but that's no justification for turning our back on 
international commitments and undercutting our international 
credibility.
  If our goal is, as I believe it should be, obtaining the best 
possible actionable intelligence from suspects, then torture is not the 
best tool in our arsenal.
  Torture is immoral, illegal, and rarely yields necessarily credible 
intelligence.
  We're all too familiar with the misleading testimony of a high level 
Al Qaeda member, who was rendered to Egypt, where he stated under 
duress that Saddam Hussein had offered to train Al Qaeda operatives in 
the use of ``chemical or biological weapons.''
  Following his transfer to Guantanamo, this witness recanted and the 
9/11 Commission confirmed that there was no working relationship 
between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
  When we abuse prisoners and flout the Geneva Conventions, we are no 
better than some of the repressive regimes around the world whom we are 
trying to change.
  While administration officials at the highest levels including 
Justice Department officials and Secretary Rumsfeld have argued for 
great flexibility in handling of prisoners, more junior enlisted men 
and women have been a true example to our Nation.
  From Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, who first reported that abuse was 
occurring at Abu Ghraib, to Army Captain Ian Fishback, who 
unsuccessfully called for clearer guidelines on interrogation, our men 
and women in uniform have been a moral compass to others who have lost 
their way at all levels of government and who have betrayed our 
nation's values.
  We owe it to the rank and file who fight our Nation's wars and who 
defend our flag around the world to adopt the McCain/Harman language 
and to support Mr. Murtha's motion.
  I call on all my colleagues to support this important motion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the 
aisle: Support this critically important motion to instruct.
  It is identical to the amendment offered by Senator McCain--and 
passed 90-9 and by voice vote in the Senate--on the defense 
appropriations and defense authorization bills.

[[Page 28349]]

  This motion would do two things. First, it would establish the Army 
field manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of 
department of defense detainees.
  There is still much confusion about which interrogation techniques 
are permissible--and this confusion has been fomented by a White House 
that believed the Geneva Conventions were outmoded and inapplicable.
  Secondly, this motion would prohibit ``cruel, inhumane and degrading 
treatment'' of detainees. Thus, it is consistent with the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.
  Sadly, this prohibition on torture is necessitated by the 
administration's own actions: its endorsement of interrogation tactics 
that border on torture, anything short of ``organ failure'', and a 
large number of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  While the President stated in November that ``We do not torture,'' 
his own Vice President has worked against this motion and sought legal 
language that would allegedly allow the CIA to utilize torture tactics 
against foreign prisoners it is holding overseas.
  As Senator McCain, himself a victim of torture at the hands of North 
Vietnamese, recently stated: The administration's position ``means that 
America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to 
engage in cruel and inhumane treatment.''
  The administration's position on this matter is simply not 
defensible.
  It undermines our credibility in the world. It harms our efforts in 
the war on terror. It makes more likely the exposure of our own troops 
to torture. And, it completely betrays our cherished American values.
  This is not a question of whether we must combat--and defeat--
terrorists.
  We must.
  This is an issue of who we are as a people.
  And we must never let it be said that when this generation of 
Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics 
of the tyrant; that we stooped to the depths of the dictator.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has the responsibility under article I, 
section 8 of our Constitution to make ``rules concerning captures on 
land and water.'' That is a responsibility that we must embrace today, 
and not delegate to a zealous executive branch.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today at long last, because of Congressman 
John Murtha's leadership and persistence, the House finally has the 
chance to go on record in favor of clear procedures for dealing with 
prisoners and against torture.
  In September, 29 retired military officers including General Joseph 
Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, and our former colleague Ambassador 
Pete Peterson, sent a letter to Senator McCain in support of the 
amendment that is the subject of Mr. Murtha's motion to instruct.
  The officers state the case against mistreatment of prisoners 
succinctly: ``The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war 
on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the 
enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for 
generations.''
  The Senate responded by adopting the McCain amendment by a vote of 90 
to 9. I hope the House will vote in equally strong numbers.
  Our troops were sent to war in Iraq without many of the essentials 
needed for their effectiveness and their safety, including a standard 
of conduct for the treatment of detainees.
  We have seen, to our great shame and regret, the consequences of this 
lack of clarity. At Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, at Guantanamo, 
and in Afghanistan, allegations and evidence of detainee abuse have 
damaged the standing of the United States in the world.
  Congress should have made it a priority to get to the bottom of the 
prisoner abuse scandals so that those responsible, regardless of their 
place in the chain of command, were held accountable and corrective 
actions taken. That has not been done.
  We must heed the requests for assistance from our soldiers in the 
field who, in the absence of clear limits on permissible treatment are 
left in an impossible position, are forced to assume all of the risks 
and shoulder all of the blame.
  The United States has long been bound by international agreements 
prohibiting torture. That we even find it necessary to make the 
prohibition against torture more explicit is the result of the Bush 
administration's legal interpretation that these long-standing 
prohibitions apply only to persons on U.S. soil.
  Torture should not be employed as an interrogation technique by the 
United States for two simple reasons: it doesn't work and it is wrong. 
We can not rely on information obtained through torture, and even if we 
could, the cost is too high.
  The values that define our country--the values that our men and women 
in uniform are called upon to defend sometimes at the cost of their 
lives--are antithetical to the use of torture. The American people are 
much better than that. Our struggle with the forces of international 
terrorism is as much a battle of ideas as a battle of arms. We weaken 
ourselves when we compromise our ideals. Standing against torture helps 
define the differences between the United States and those who offer no 
message other than hatred and violence.
  Adopting this motion to instruct is in the best traditions, and the 
best interests, of our country. I urge my colleagues to approve it 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Last month, 64 Members of this body joined with me in signing a 
letter urging the Appropriations Committee to say ``no'' to torture and 
``yes'' to the McCain and Markey amendments as part of the Defense 
Appropriations Conference.
  The McCain amendment, which is the subject of this motion, will 
prevent the use of inhuman interrogation practices.
  The Markey amendment will prevent the use of funds in contravention 
of the UN Convention Against Torture.
  We need to send a signal to the administration and the rest of the 
world that we will not dodge our treaty obligations to our 
international allies under the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
  We do not support the use of torture as an interrogation method. 
Torture is morally wrong. Always. And without exception.
  Not only is torture wrong, confessions obtained from torture are 
useless. A prisoner will say anything to stop their own suffering.
  If we do not approve both the McCain and Markey amendments, we will 
set a precedent that torture is okay for all and open up our own troops 
to face torture at the hands of our enemies. Our troops already face 
enough risks. Shouldn't we protect them any way we can?
  Furthermore, if we reduce ourselves to use the methods that we 
condemn terrorists for using, we lose our moral high ground. We have 
always been a beacon to the rest of the world on human rights and the 
rule of law. Should we change hundreds of years of history for this 
administration?
  Reports of ``black sites'' where detainees in US custody are rendered 
without a trace come on top of reports of prisoner abuse and even death 
from the use of torture in U.S.-run prisons such as Abu Ghraib.
  We criticize countries like Syria and Uzbekistan even as our CIA 
secretly sends detainees to be interrogated by the secret police of 
these very same human rights violators.
  It seems obvious, that as a civilized nation, we should not fund 
torture, use torture as an interrogation tool, or ask other countries 
to torture for us, yet, for reasons beyond my imagination, we are still 
discussing this arcane, abhorrent practice today.
  The adoption of the McCain and Markey amendments is an important step 
towards both restoring our nation's reputation for respecting human 
rights and preventing shameful abuses similar to those that occurred in 
Abu Ghraib.
  We can not tolerate torture by any U.S. official. It is blood on all 
of our hands, on our countries good name. I support the McCain and 
Markey amendments and urge the conferees to do so as well.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
language to instruct conferees offered by my esteemed colleague from 
Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. Speaker, my support for this language hinges on three fundamental 
points: torture is not effective; torture does not further the security 
interests of the United States; and our use of torture adds to the risk 
that United States military and civilian personnel could be subjected 
to torture themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence for eight years; four of those years as the ranking 
member. I appreciate the value of good, reliable intelligence. In fact, 
I expect that we all have a greater appreciation for good intelligence 
in light of what we have learned about the situation in Iraq since we 
toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. It was just this morning in 
an address at the Woodrow Wilson Institute that President Bush, in 
describing the decision to go into Iraq said that ``it is true that 
much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.''

[[Page 28350]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that torture was the root cause of our 
incorrect intelligence assessments in early 2003. My point is that our 
nation needs the best intelligence that we can get. The intelligence 
community and our military recognize that torture and abuse are not 
effective methods of interrogation. We must not allow cruel, inhuman 
and degrading treatment to be used if for no other reason than that 
they yield poor results.
  Mr. Speaker, my second point is that the use of torture does not 
advance the security interests of the United States. We are in a global 
war on terror. This is a war that is going to be waged on many fronts 
around the world. As much as it is a military conflict, the global war 
on terror is a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the 
world. If our nation is to remain the recognized leader in the cause of 
freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we must live and abide by the 
principles and laws to which we have committed ourselves. If we do not 
send a strong message to the world that we will not engage in torture, 
we undermine our very security by giving terrorists ammunition to use 
in furthering their aims.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if we do not renounce the use of torture, we 
put our own soldiers and citizens at risk of being subjected to these 
very measures. We cannot allow any perception that we support torture, 
if we are to call for the world community to resist its use against our 
own people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the members of the House to support the language 
that makes it clear to the world that the United States will not use 
torture.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
for instructing conferees on the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill to 
include the amendment by our colleague in the Senate, John McCain. This 
provision would simply provide for uniform standards for the 
interrogation of persons under the detention of the Defense Department 
and a prohibition on cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or 
punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government.
  Senator McCain knows the ravages of war and devastating effects of 
inhumane treatment at the hands of an enemy. He and other American 
soldiers during the Vietnam War were subjected to terrible treatment 
that no human being ought to endure. In recent floor remarks, Senator 
McCain explained that during his time in captivity he and his fellow 
American soldiers drew strength from knowing that the institution to 
which they belonged, the U.S. military, and the country they served 
stood for the highest of principles and ideals. They believed that the 
U.S. would never treat prisoners of war the way that they were being 
treated.
  No one would disagree that ``torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading 
treatment'' is unjust, but there is clear evidence that it is also 
ineffective. When put under extreme levels of pain or duress during 
interrogation, a detainee is more likely to say anything to stop the 
pain, regardless of its accuracy. Moreover, our own cruel treatment of 
others legitimizes the torture of American citizens. Look no further 
than the desecrated bodies of American citizens and soldiers killed in 
Iraq for tragic evidence of this reaction. Furthermore, torture and 
inhumane treatment aids in the recruitment of terrorists and fuels 
further terrorist activity.
  As members of Congress, we have the Constitutional obligation, under 
Article I, Section 8, to speak out on this issue and others related to 
treatment of foreign detainees in war. We also have a moral obligation 
to oppose cruel and degrading treatment of human beings, and a 
patriotic obligation to stand up for the honor of this country.
  In the wake of the scrutiny and embarrassment that our nation has 
endured following the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and 
Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that we proclaim to the rest of the 
world that this policy reflects the law of the land and the conscience 
of our country. Providing our soldiers with clear, written guidance on 
how to treat detainees not only protects their interests but 
underscores the freedoms and values we cherish as Americans and that we 
claim to be the reason we have gone to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and 
other parts of the world.
  Today, as a Congress we must respect and honor our nation, those that 
risk their lives to serve it, and the high standards and ideals on 
which it is based. Supporting the McCain amendment is not an issue of 
political difference; it is an issue of national identity.
  The McCain amendment is needed to close a loophole in current policy 
that does not explicitly describe standards for foreigners held under 
U.S. custody abroad. This amendment reiterates and clarifies our 
existing policy that prohibits the use of torture, cruel, inhuman, and 
degrading treatment by U.S. soldiers and agents who are detaining and 
interrogating prisoners in the global war on terror, requiring that 
they use the techniques sanctioned in the Army Field Manual on 
Intelligence and Interrogation.
  I urge my colleagues to resist any efforts to accept a watered down 
version of Senator McCain's language that would grant exceptions for 
the CIA to conduct its own investigations of detainees in locations 
overseas that are independent of the Army Field Manual. Such a move, 
which apparently is being orchestrated by the Vice President's office, 
would only defeat the intent of the provision adopted in the Senate and 
cause further confusion among military and civilian service people 
charged with detainee interrogations.
  The Army Field Manual has been used as the standard for interrogation 
guidance since it was established during the Reagan Administration. The 
Manual does not cast any technique into stone, but changes with time 
and includes techniques and descriptions that are classified so as not 
to be uncovered by enemies.
  In a sign of broad bipartisan support, the Senate overwhelmingly 
approved the McCain amendment in a 90 to 9 vote. In addition, 28 
retired military leaders, including General Shalikashvili, General 
Hoar, and General Colin Powell, have supported legislating the use of 
the Army Field Manual through the McCain amendment.
  In today's global war on terror, men and women in the armed forces 
are charged with the critical task of detaining and interrogating 
prisoners of war and enemy combatants without clear instructions on 
what is and what is not permissible. These ambiguities contributed to 
the absence of standards that resulted in the degrading and inhumane 
treatment that we, and the rest of the world, witnessed at Abu Ghraib 
and what apparently occurred at Guantanamo at the hands of young and 
ill-advised soldiers.
  The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stained the honor of our 
country and our military. I know that most of our constituents want to 
amend these wrongdoings. In order to do this, and to help protect the 
treatment of American soldiers who may be held as prisoners of war, we 
must give our troops clear instructions on acceptable treatment during 
detainment and interrogation, without equivocation.
  Let us not shrink from the responsibility that stands before us; let 
us rise as a united body to defend our principles, uphold our proud 
traditions and articulate to the world what America stands for. I urge 
my colleagues to express their support to Chairman Young to retain the 
McCain amendment, without modification, in the conference agreement to 
the FY2006 Defense Appropriations bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to 
Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense 
Appropriations Act, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  There is no question that recent charges of misconduct at Guantanamo 
Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons are obvious indications that there is 
significant confusion in the field regarding the interrogation of 
detainees.
  Our soldiers and interrogators need to know exactly where the line is 
when engaging prisoners and there should be absolutely no question 
about what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
  It is clear that any treatment that is cruel, inhuman and degrading 
is unacceptable. Such treatment is clearly prohibited by the Fifth, 
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and these 
abuses are a direct violation of our government's treaty obligations.
  The provisions included in the Senate version of the Defense 
Appropriations bill simply ensure that persons under U.S. custody or 
control in facilities outside of this country cannot be subjected to 
treatment that would be deemed unconstitutional if it occurred in U.S. 
territory.
  I strongly support President Bush's efforts to defeat terrorism and 
his explicit denouncement of torture is crucial to winning this 
struggle. Backroom deals to blur the lines or allow exemptions for 
certain government agencies undermine the very freedoms our soldiers 
are fighting for around the globe.
  It is our duty to provide clarity about the values and standards by 
which America lives in contrast to our enemies. Now is the time for our 
government to reaffirm our position as the world's leader on human 
rights, and establish an unambiguous standard for the international 
treatment of detainees.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision has passed the Senate with broad, 
bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to support this very 
important motion to instruct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 28351]]


  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________