[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4094-4095]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 4095]]

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 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.

                          ____________________