I should have added, since the legal definition of torture is to cause body organ failure, and it's already illegal, then why we needed another bill is a mystery.
It depends on whether this bill really has any meaning with regard to ongoing operations. I suspect that it does not. True to McCain's form, he's likely drafted up a bill that is all fluff and no stuff... that really does nothing at all.
For the in-extremis sorts of situations, like the "ticking bomb" scenario, it doesn't really matter either. The President can authorize anything he wants and pardon whomever he needs.
Its the effect on ordinary daily interrogation that has the most at stake, and in these situations I don't suspect that much in the way of true "torture" takes place. It's just not that useful. Information gained from somebody who will say anything to stop the agony is likely useless anyway.
Again, I suspect that this bill is simply McCain playing for the cameras, banning some stuff that's already banned, and doing nothing of substance. That would be why the White House would just say "OK, John... you got your face time, now go away." But I'd like to know the definitions of the techniques that are prohibited to know if anything has really been lost.