Recall that on October 5, McCain's S.AMND.1977 passed on a 90-9 vote as part of H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. And also that he attempted to attach the same amendment to S.1042, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as S.AMND.1556 and S.AMND.1557, back in July. Those additions were withdrawn in the Senate, after being proposed.
I mistakenly asserted that the "torture amendment" was not part of S.1042, in my post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522703/posts?page=95#95. But on November 4, the Senate did attach exactly the same McCain amendment to S.1042 that was withdrawn in July, and added to the DoD Appropriations Act in October.
S.AMND.2425 was porposed and was added to S.1042, on November 4. Here is part of the rhetoric that accompanied the repetition.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, letters from the Navy League of the United States and from Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution to Patrick Leahy, which I think are important documents as far as constitutional aspects of this issue, be printed in the Record.The entire exchange and exhibits is long. I haven't read through them yet, but plan to in order to figure out how the McCain "anti torture" rhetoric adds to existing statutory and treaty law.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the one that was adopted by a vote of 90 to 9 on the appropriations bill, and it does the following: Establishes the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and, two, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government.
Because of the extraordinary support for this legislation and its importance to our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that these provisions remain on the appropriations measure which is now in conference, although I understand the conferees have not been appointed on the House side.
There is a rumor that with the inclusion in the authorizing bill, then an argument will be made to have it taken out of the appropriations bill, and then the authorizing bill would never reach agreement in conference. That is a bit Machiavellian. Most of all, it is very important because it thwarts the will of 90 Members of the Senate, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, and an overwhelming majority of the American people.
I hope very sincerely that the inclusion of this provision on the authorization bill, which is important in the authorizing process, does not in any way give an excuse to have it removed from the appropriations bill.
I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership and efforts to date to offer a motion to instruct conferees to keep this amendment intact without modification. I hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to thwart the overwhelming majorities in both Chambers.
I thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, particularly our leader Senator Warner, as well as the ranking Democrat, Senator Levin, who have provided guidance, leadership, and encouragement on this very important issue. I am very grateful for their leadership.
Let me be clear.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor, as I have been consistently on the Senator's amendments. He will recall that our first meeting was when I was Secretary of the Navy when he returned from Vietnam. So our relationship on this issue has a long history, and I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense that this manual be the guide for our men and women of the U.S. military. I commend the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that both Senator Warner and Senator Levin be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
... Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
Mr. President, I say again on this issue, No. 1, it is not going away. It is not going away. If, through some parliamentary maneuver, temporarily the will of the majority of both Houses, both bicameral and bipartisan, is thwarted, it will be on every vehicle that goes through this body because you cannot override the majority of the American people and their elected representatives in a functioning democracy. ...
The second part of this amendment is a prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. If that doesn't sound new, that is because it is not. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. To mention a few examples: The prohibitions are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory; and the binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate.
Nevertheless, the administration has held that the prohibition does not legally apply to foreigners held overseas. [Cboldt: I'd like a citation to that proposition] They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. That means America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment. How far have we come? ...
I hope we could adopt this by voice vote at the appropriate time. Since we voted recently by a vote of 90 to 9, I don't see any reason why we should force people to be on record again.
Mash here -> 109th Congress - Senate - November 4, 2005
Navigate to: 4 . NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
(PDF links -> S12380, S12381, S12382, S12383, S12384, S12385, S12386)
Via Cboldt
H.R.3199 - This is the active bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.3199:
Summary of Senate amendments to H.R.3199
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03199:@@@D&summ2=1&
S.1389 - Senate Version (useful only as raw comparison with H.R.3199)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01389:
Sunsetting provisions of Patriot Act - CRS-RL34499
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34499.pdf
Links to additional Patriot Act Documents (FOIA requests, etc.)
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunset.html
Nov 17 Letter from 6 Senators to Specter, Leahy, Roberts & Rockefeller
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/senateletter_111705.pdf
Article regarding the effect of the letter (excerpts quoted below)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aV62ogQWNxLg&refer=us
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, is in talks with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, and other lawmakers to build support for the accord [an agreement between House and Senate reelating to details of what the Senate would pass].
Specter and his House counterpart, Representative James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, are trying to seal an agreement so it can be approved by both chambers before lawmakers leave at the end of this week for the Thanksgiving recess.
``We're working on it,'' Specter said. When asked about Feingold's threat to filibuster, he joked, ``He's got strong lungs.''
Senator Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, said Republican congressional leaders shouldn't underestimate the opposition to the accord.
Durbin said he would support Feingold's efforts to block a vote on the agreement. He declined to say whether enough Democrats would support the effort to sustain a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome.
Durbin, Feingold, Sununu and three other senators sent a letter to Specter, Leahy and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the panel's senior Democrat, saying they would oppose the agreement unless ``significant'' changes were made. ...
Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Larry Craig of Idaho and Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado also signed the letter.
... the House legislation provided fewer checks on government authority than the Senate version.
Senator Jeff Sessions, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was concerned Democrats and civil-liberties groups are trying to weaken the FBI's ability to conduct terrorism investigations.
In the current agreement, which he supports, ``We actually have more restrictions on terrorist investigators than on prosecutors and police all over America,'' said Sessions, an Alabama Republican.
Leahy still holds out hope a broadly supported agreement can be reached, said Tracy Schmaler, his spokeswoman.