Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the latest example of the complete and utter failure of the Democratic leadership in the House to give the intelligence community the tools that it needs to protect the American people and our allies from radical jihadists who have sworn to wage holy war against freedom in order to impose a radical religious tyranny. I urge my colleagues to oppose this override of the President's veto.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are finding out how tough it is to pass legislation in the intelligence area. But the lesson they need to learn, this is about national security, and national security issues need to be done on a bipartisan basis, can not be done on a purely partisan basis.

The debate on this authorization bill is not about a single issue, as some would have you believe. It is about the need to ensure that we give the right tools to our intelligence professionals in this time of enhanced threat. What we should be talking about today is improving this bill so that it can have broad bipartisan support.

But we also ought to be talking about FISA, FISA modernization. That is the vote that this House should be considering. That is the tool that our intelligence community has said that they need to keep America safe. That is the tool that, on a broad bipartisan basis, the model for how we should be doing legislation in this area. It's how they did it in the Senate, 68 Senators on a bipartisan basis saying we need to do FISA reform. We need to do it to keep America safe, to keep our homeland safe, to keep our troops safe, to keep our embassies and our personnel overseas safe, and to make sure that we also have the tools in place that so many of our allies rely on to keep them safe.

But no, once again, this House moves in a partisan basis. It's been almost 25 days now that the leadership on the other side of the aisle has refused to even bring up for a vote FISA modernization. Each and every day, our capabilities in this area erode. One of the most important and one of the most successful tools that we have used to keep America safe over the last 7 years is slowly eroding. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not even allow it to come up for a vote.

The United States continues to employ tough antiterrorist programs because the radical jihadist threat did not end with 9/11. One only has to listen to the statements by bin Laden, his deputy, Zawahiri, to understand the seriousness of this threat, its global implications, and the determination of radical jihadists to strike the American homeland.

But instead of doing a bipartisan, national security issue, we continue to move down the path of partisan politics. The majority leadership of this House refuses to see or hear the continuing threat from radical jihadists. Even more troubling, the majority refuses to recognize that tough antiterrorist tools employed since 2001 have protected this country from terrorist attacks.

Instead, some have distorted anti-terrorist programs as threats to the American people rather than tools that our intelligence agencies are using to protect us from threats of radical jihadist terrorism. Instead of helping to strengthen anti-terrorist tools, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have established a clear patent of trying to undermine and erode them, undermining and eroding the very type of people that we should be trying to help with this bill, the men and women who risk their lives each and every day in the intelligence community to keep America safe.

There is no better example than the outright refusal of the majority leadership to allow a straight up-or-down vote on bipartisan FISA modernization legislation.

Again, this is a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, clearly supported by a majority of this House. There's ample reason to be concerned about this abuse of the majority's powers. I'm far more concerned at the impact that these actions are continuing to have and the capabilities of our intelligence professionals to protect our country, our people, and our allies from attack.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

At this point in time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that this debate is about something that hasn't been done for 5 years. What we need to be talking about is what we haven't been able to do for the last 30 days.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about a technique and a procedure that hasn't been used for 5 years, but they're unwilling to talk about the technique that enables us to identify what terrorists may have planned for the United States.

They don't want to address giving the tools to Americans who work in the intelligence community that have proven to be effective. They're willing to give our playbook to al Qaeda, but at the same time they've taken away our most effective tool, to try to determine exactly what al Qaeda may be up to. It is probably the most glaring deficiency in this bill, but there are many others.

It fails to provide adequate resources for human intelligence. The earmarks we've heard about. It fails to constrain the size of the intelligence bureaucracy. It fails to rationalize how we're going to put the intelligence community together. And then, interestingly enough, it continues the misplaced priorities.

We are unwilling to deal with FISA. We are unwilling to give that tool to our intelligence community, but we feel that it's more than appropriate to tell our intelligence community to go out and conduct a formal assessment of ``national security,'' the national security aspects of global warming.

Our intelligence professionals in the field need to be really wondering what's going on in the House, where they've now watched us for 30 days avoiding dealing with the tough issue that has proven to be so effective in keeping America safe, and at the same time we're arguing here, and the majority is arguing that, forget about surveilling al Qaeda and radical jihadists, take your resources and study national security aspects of global warming, although there's many other agencies that already work on that.

So, shelve FISA. As a matter of fact, don't even talk about FISA. Don't even bring it to the floor. Don't do any work on it. Don't put any proposals out there. Have no bipartisan discussions on where we go with FISA. Leave that on the shelf. Let our capabilities erode. Go out and study global warming.

What are the priorities of this House? How are we going to keep America safe when we, on one hand, handcuff our intelligence community, and on the other hand, we're telling them go out and study the national security aspects of global warming?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Again, the debate is about a bill that the President has outlined in his veto statement is deeply flawed, deeply flawed in the content of what is in the bill as to what it directs the President to do and the limitations that it places on the executive branch in being able to conduct the war against radical jihadists effectively.

But it's also clear that the message clearly outlines the deficiencies of what is not in the bill: the inability and unwillingness of the Democratic leadership to bring to the House the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill; a bill that reflects the values of the Speaker of the House; a bill that reflects the values of the current Speaker of the House when she was on the Intelligence Committee in 2001 when these discussions were under way that talked about what do we need to do to give our intelligence community the tools that they need to keep America safe so that we can better understand the plans, the intentions, and the capabilities of al Qaeda and other radical jihadists.

That is where the Terrorist Surveillance Program took root. Bipartisan, the President, the leadership of the House and the Senate, the leadership of the Intelligence Committees, and all of them united in saying we need to give this tool, this Terrorist Surveillance Program, to our intelligence community because it will allow us to collect the information, the data, that we can use to keep America safe. And that program was in place for over 5 years. It was in place and it proved to be very successful. And now for 30 days, almost 30 days, we've been unable to use that tool.

Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I applaud my colleagues for speaking with such passion. I wish they had the same passion for addressing the tools that the leadership in the intelligence community have said that they have needed, that our intelligence professionals who are in the field have said that they have needed to keep America safe. And this leadership has been unwilling to bring it up for almost 30 days.

The tool that they want, the tool that they need, and the tool that has proven to be so effective is the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which is an updated version of FISA legislation. It takes the FISA legislation, it moves it forward, and it updates it. But for almost 30 days, that tool has been eroding, putting our troops at risk, putting our homeland at greater risk, putting other U.S. personnel who are oversees at greater risk, and putting our allies who depend so often on the work of our intelligence community, putting them at greater risk. As al Qaeda in Iraq has said they want to attack Jerusalem, as Hezbollah has said that they intend to retaliate for the death of Mughniyah 3 or 4 weeks ago, as the radicals seek to destabilize the regimes in the Middle East of modern Islamic countries, people that are working with us in the war and the threat against radical jihadists, our answer to them is we're going to curtail our intelligence activities, and as a result, you will be at greater risk because we are going to be of less assistance. We are not going to be able to give you the intelligence that you've been receiving for the last 5 years because our techniques are limited.

Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The Detainee Treatment Act, 2005, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, the standard found in the convention against torture. It applies to anyone held by U.S. authorities. We have dealt with that issue. We dealt with it in 2005.

What my colleagues don't want to talk about is they don't want to talk about the other weaknesses in this bill. And it's clear, by what their actions have been for the last 4 weeks, they don't want to talk about FISA.

As my former ranking member has indicated, it is tough to pass an authorization bill. It is tough to pass legislation. She and I worked together and passed, with our colleagues in the Senate, an Intelligence Reform Act, which in many ways has worked and in some ways we need to go back and take a look at. But one of the things that we learned through that process is to make it work, you need to do it on a bipartisan basis.

The problem with this bill is that it is a partisan bill. It passed the Senate with a very narrow majority. It passed the House on a partisan vote. That's not how you're going to get it done. You're going to do it the same way that the Senate has done the FISA bill.

But the interesting thing is the model for getting something done, which is a bipartisan bill, which is what we did on intelligence reform, we had Republicans and Democrats who came together to make it a majority; and we also had Republicans and Democrats who opposed us, and it was sometimes very painful. Now, when the Senate has gone through that process and passed a bipartisan bill on FISA, the model, 27 Democrats, 41 Republicans coming together and modernizing FISA, the end result is this leadership on the House side refuses to deal with it. It's on every intelligence issue that we've dealt with in this Congress.

When it comes to national security, when it comes to intelligence, there is not an ounce of compromise. It's all about getting everything, and that's why the President vetoed this bill, because it is not a bipartisan bill. There are many weaknesses in it.

All the focus on their side is torture. Talk about FISA, which makes a real difference to our men and women in the intelligence community today.

Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, as we go through this process and we talk about what's in the bill, the provision that we are talking about, or at least the other side is talking about, is a provision that was dropped in in conference. It came from the Senate. It didn't come from the House. We ought to follow that model. Follow the leadership.

It's interesting, we follow the leadership here when it's a partisan vote coming from the Senate; but when it's a bipartisan effort from the Senate, the leadership on the Democratic side will not respond and will not follow.

On this bill, we are going to sustain the veto. It is a flawed bill through and through. It would be interesting for this House to do the right thing, to have a vote on a national security issue, the modernization of FISA, to bring that vote. I am very much afraid that we are going to go home Thursday or Friday of this week and we are going to go on a 2-week recess and, once again, we will not have dealt with the modernization of FISA.

That means that we will go through a period of 6, 7, 8 weeks of eroding capabilities, each and every day becoming more vulnerable to radical jihadists and other groups who want to harm America.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

It is interesting to talk about waterboarding. It hasn't been done for 5 years. It is interesting to talk about we are going to get rid of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. We did that in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It is prohibited, prohibited on any person that is held in U.S. custody. So it is easy to talk about those things.

It is time that the House start doing the hard stuff and the heavy lifting. That heavy lifting has now been put off for almost 4 weeks. And my fear is that we will leave without having resolved the issue between the House and the Senate, and we will go away for 2 more weeks because the House and the Democratic leadership refuses to do the heavy lifting and refuses to do the hard stuff. They are willing to go back and do the stuff that was done in 2005 and address issues that haven't occurred for over 5 years. But when it comes to keeping America safe and doing what is necessary and giving the tools to the intelligence community to keep us safe, leadership of this House is unwilling to act and is unwilling to do what is necessary.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time

I yield myself 1 minute.

The Detainee Treatment Act outlaws cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. There seems to be a sense of urgency to do what we have done and do it again. It is too bad that there is no sense of urgency to give our individuals in the intelligence community the tools that they need to keep us safe.

The Senate has passed FISA. We should do the same thing. And we should do it before we go home. We need to start doing national security issues in a bipartisan basis. The longer we continue going down this path of making national security and intelligence issues purely partisan, some might call them purely political issues, we risk the security and the safety of the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues today to sustain the President's veto. This is an ill-advised bill. This goes back to what we did in the 1990s, ``bugs and bunnies,'' telling our intelligence folks that it is time to focus your resources and your skills on studying the national security implications of global warming.

There are many problems with this bill. But the sense of urgency that we have in the intelligence community today is, as my colleague from California pointed out today, we are going to tell al Qaeda exactly what may happen. We are going to give them our playbook. And at the same time we have limited our ability to listen to radical jihadists.

It is now 26, 27, 28 days since FISA, or the Protect America Act, has expired. How many more days will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle

wait before they take up this legislation from the Senate? Will it be one more day? Will it be three more days? Will it be two more weeks? Will it be two more months? How much greater do you want to increase the risk to the homeland, to our allies, to our troops, before you act?

The Speaker of the House shortly after 9/11 agreed that we needed to act. It is beyond me why she doesn't want to act now and why we don't have that sense of urgency. It is time to bring FISA to the floor, and it is time to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto. This year, for the first time in 3 years, the Congress passed an intelligence authorization act and presented it to the President. This was something that had proved impossible for a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate. In recent years, while the bill passed the House, it never even got to conference. When I took over as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I made passing an authorization all the way through conference a high priority. It wasn't easy, but I thought it was crucial that we revitalize the oversight process, and I committed to getting an authorization bill not only passed through the House but sent to the President.

The intelligence community, by its very nature, presents a very difficult oversight challenge for Congress. This is why the intelligence authorization bill is so critical. It is the culmination of the committee's oversight activities conducted over the previous year. Intelligence funding is one of the few areas where the law requires funds to be both appropriated and authorized. Our constituents, of course, are demanding that we weigh in on all the important intelligence-related challenges that our Nation is facing.

This legislation goes a long way towards strengthening oversight of the intelligence community, which the President seems to consistently want to fight. That's why the President vetoed it. He wants the authority to do whatever he wants, in secret, with no oversight or authorization or without any checks and balances.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree. The Constitution gives us a role in this process. We do have a say, in the name of the United States of America, in what the intelligence community does. That's why we need to override this veto.

This legislation enhances oversight in several ways. It requires quarterly reports to Congress on the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea. We learned a lesson from the experience in Iraq. Congress must be careful and must be part of the process and a consumer of intelligence to avoid being sold a bill of goods.

The act requires the CIA inspector general to audit covert activities at least once every 3 years. Covert activities are historically where our intelligence community runs into legal and policy trouble. An independent CIA audit is one way to prevent problems that have embarrassed our Nation and have eroded our moral authority.

The authorization act also requires detailed accounting to Congress on the use of intelligence contractors. The use of contractors has grown exponentially, and no one is asking critical management questions about whether this is a good use of taxpayer money.

An important substantive provision of the legislation also requires the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community to abide by the same regulations that DOD follows in the context of interrogations. If it's not permissible for soldiers in Iraq, where they face a life-or-death threat daily, it shouldn't be permissible for a CIA officer or contractor.

Mr. Speaker, if this veto stands, all of these important oversight provisions will disappear. If we believe in strong oversight, we need to override this veto.

In addition to addressing long ignored oversight issues, the legislation is fundamentally the mechanism for authorizing funds for the intelligence community. This legislation authorizes funds for the full range of critical intelligence activities. It authorizes funds to support counterterrorism operations to keep Americans safe today, and it authorizes funds for the strategic intelligence investments to keep Americans safe in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, the Intelligence Committee will be silent on these important authorization issues. Once more, we'll have no authorization bill.

The bill also addresses some persistent management problems in the intelligence community. It requires steps towards a multi-level security clearance system to recruit more native speakers of critical languages into our intelligence community. It takes important steps towards creating a more diverse workforce to strengthen our ability to collect intelligence all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, if we fail to override this veto, it's business as usual. No new solutions, just the same old intelligence problems.

I have visited the patriotic men and women of the intelligence community in the far corners and in the far reaches all over the globe. They deserve our support. They are brave, they are competent, and, in most cases, they are humbled to be doing the job to keep us safe. Many serve our Nation behind the scenes and at great risk, without any expectation of recognition or congratulations. For them, and for all Americans, this is important legislation.

The intelligence community came to us for money, they came to us for tools, and they came to us for new authorities. We gave them what they asked for. The President, with his veto, is denying them those very things simply because he wants no limits on his Presidential power.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back on point by yielding 3 minutes to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Service Committee.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on this parallel universe, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who chairs one of

our subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona that this veto is not about earmarks; it's about torture.

With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who serves as the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Mr. Speaker, again I would remind the gentleman that this is not about spy pork; it's about torture.

With that, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois, a valued member of our committee, Ms. Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we believe that our very capable and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community can keep us safe without torture.

I now yield 3 minutes to the newest member of our Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas (Mr. Doggett), who was just asking me, As I traveled around the world, have any of our fine men and women in the intelligence community ever asked to be given the tool of torture? and I said, No.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, it won't be interesting if this veto is sustained. It will be a sad day for this country because it will be sustaining torture.

With that, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the valued member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, a member of the leadership of this House, the majority leader, and one that is proud to stand up against torture and for the American people, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time.

Thank you.

I would advise the gentleman from Michigan I have one additional speaker.

With that, I now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical bill for the intelligence community. If you vote to sustain this veto, you are voting for torture with the President. I believe we should stand with the men and women of the community and override the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this legislation was not a surprise but still very disappointing.

It was not a surprise because the President had clearly signaled his intention to reject the bill's requirement that all intelligence agencies follow the rules governing interrogation techniques followed by our military, even though the bill also authorizes supplemental funding for counterterrorism as well as funding for advanced research and development funding to

help maintain our technical capacity for intelligence, to repair and replace aging and inadequate power infrastructure, and to improve training and education of linguists, analysts, and human intelligence collectors.

But it was disappointing that President Bush refuses to agree to that simple requirement, because the result is to signal to the world that he refuses to recognize that the result will be to place every American, especially those in uniform around the world, at grave risk.

The United States historically has led in the effort to establish and enforce the laws of war and conventions against torture. Indeed, the Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of conduct.

The importance of that leadership and the appropriateness of the guidelines in the field manual were clearly recognized by Congress when we voted to approve the conference report's provision extending the field manual to the entire intelligence community--the provision to which the President objects and which has prompted him to veto the legislation. By extending the field manual to the intelligence community, the legislation would effectively outlaw waterboarding and similar coercive techniques. I support that because waterboarding is widely and rightly viewed as a form of torture and the refusal to renounce its use will result in greater damage to our national interests than the possible benefits of its possible use in the future.

I think the case for overriding the President's veto was well made by the Colorado Springs Gazette in a recent editorial pointing out that ``the use of torture blurs the line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians.'' As the editorial notes,

In the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those

tempted to support or harbor them, the perception that the

United States has a certain moral authority is invaluable.

Moral authority was a key factor in the long, twilight

struggle with aggressive communism we call the Cold War.

Using torture undermines that moral authority.

It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of

torture tend to be military and former military people who

understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it

is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead

of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be

justified, the government should announce that America

doesn't do that any more--and mean it.

I agree, and that is why I will vote today to override the President's unwise veto of this important legislation. For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the complete text of the editorial:

[From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Feb. 14, 2008]

The High Road--Forswearing Torture Gives U.S. Moral Standing

So it's out in the open now. Central Intelligence Agency

Director Gen. Michael Hayden admitted to the Senate

Intelligence Committee last week that the CIA used the

coercive interrogation technique known as waterboarding, a

form of simulated drowning, on three al-Qaida operatives in

2002 and 2003. The technique is widely viewed as torture,

which is prohibited by U.S. law and international treaties.

Hayden said it has not been used since 2003 but that the CIA

could use it again if approved by both the attorney general

and the president.

The Justice Department is currently investigating the

destruction of videotapes of the interrogations of two

detainees held in Thailand who were reportedly subjected to

waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques to

determine whether destroying the tapes amounted to

obstruction of justice.

Public disclosure of these incidents should lead to a firm

U.S. policy preventing government operatives from using

torture in the future. Perhaps the best thing about the

emergence of Sen. John McCain as the Republican presidential

frontrunner is that McCain, who was tortured by the North

Vietnamese while a POW during the Vietnam War, has expressed

his firm opposition to the use of torture by the U.S. He has

said that one thing that helped him endure his imprisonment

was the knowledge that our side doesn't engage in such

barbarity.

Torture is sometimes justified as the only way to extract

information from detainees when an attack is deemed imminent,

and Hayden said in 2002 and 2003 that everybody expected an

attack on the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But

most experienced interrogators say torture seldom if ever

produces reliable intelligence, that while other techniques

may take longer, they generally produce better information.

At a more fundamental level, the use of torture blurs the

line between civilized societies and ruthless barbarians. In

the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted

to support or harbor them, the perception that the United

States has a certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral

authority was a key factor in the long, twilight struggle

with aggressive communism we call the Cold War. Using torture

undermines that moral authority.

It is dismaying, therefore, that a day later White House

spokesman Tony Fratto was still saying that waterboarding

might be used justifiably in the future. It would have been

better to acknowledge that in the wake of 9/11 the U.S. used

coercive techniques, that one could understand the temptation

considering the circumstances and the lack of knowledge about

al-Qaida, but that we had renounced the practice.

It is telling that the firmest opponents of the use of

torture tend to be military and former military people who

understand the dangers to captured military personnel if it

is widely believed that the U.S. engages in torture. Instead

of spinning unlikely scenarios in which torture might be

justified, the government should announce that America

doesn't do that any more--and mean it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his leadership on protecting the American people. In addition to being Chair of the Intelligence Committee, he has served for many years on the Armed Services Committee. He brings to his position on Intelligence the commitment that we all have, to protecting the American people, to building a strong military second to none to do that, to protect the American people. He knows that force protection is one of the main priorities of intelligence, to protect our forces, and when they are in harm's way, to make sure they have the intelligence to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made strengthening national security and improving America's intelligence capabilities a top priority. It is our major responsibility, to protect the American people.

Our very first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, took the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations off the shelf, as they had been in the Republican Congress, and put them into law to better protect the American people. We then began our efforts to strengthen America's military, the readiness of which has been greatly depleted by the President's failed Iraq policy.

To restore our military strength, we have expanded the size of the Army and Marine Corps, passed legislation insisting that only fully mission-capable forces be deployed, and funded essential equipment, including armored Humvees.

Mr. Speaker, America's security depends on the strength of our military as we all know, but also the quality of information gathered and analysis provided by the 16 intelligence agencies that make up our Nation's intelligence community. As someone who has served on the House Intelligence Committee now as a member and ex officio for 16 years, longer than anyone in the Congress, I understand that policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch must be able to rely on accurate, timely, and actionable intelligence. That is why this intelligence authorization bill invests in human intelligence, counterterrorism operations, and analysis. It is a critical step in protecting our Nation. And the President should have signed it into law.

Regrettably, President Bush vetoed these critical investments in our intelligence capabilities because this legislation extended the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture to intelligence community personnel.

The prohibition on torture that the President vetoed protected our values, protected American military and diplomatic personnel, and protected Americans by ensuring accurate intelligence. Our Nation is on a stronger ground ethically and morally when our practices for holding and interrogating captives are consistent with the Geneva Conventions, when we do not torture.

We all have our views here about intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination; and, again, much of the focus is on force protection. So I look to the words of those who have served in the military for their view on this subject.

In the words of Retired RADM Donald Guter, a former Navy Judge Advocate General, he says: ``There is no disconnect between human rights and national security. They are synergistic. One doesn't work without the other for very long.''

Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh torture techniques also risks the safety of our soldiers and other Americans serving overseas. In a letter to the congressional Intelligence Committee chairmen, 30 retired generals and admirals, including General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, the command that oversees our military activities in the Iraq region, the Middle East and greater Middle East area, those 30 retired generals and admirals, looking again to the voices of those who have led in the military, stated: ``We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans.''

Many military officials and intelligence professionals have also stated that torture is ineffective; it is unlikely to produce the kind of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots.

I want to reinforce the message of my colleague, the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, in quoting the words of General David Petraeus. As Mr. Hoyer just stated, but I think it bears repeating, the words of General David Petraeus: ``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong,'' General Petraeus said. He went on: ``Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''

These leading military men and women and those of us who support this legislation's ban on torture believe that we can and we must protect America while preserving our country's deeply held principles.

In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might but also on our moral authority. Today, we can begin to reassert that moral authority by overriding the President's veto.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.

I thank my friend for yielding.

In response to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, let me read a statement from the President's veto message of March 8, 2008:

``My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program.'' He doesn't say that it will not be a part of the CIA program. He has very carefully worded, ``It is not part of the current program.''

That is why I tell my friend this legislation is relevant. That is why, in my opinion, his Presidential candidate, although he seems to have changed his mind, passed his own bill, which the President, of course, signed and then had a signing statement that he wasn't sure that he had to follow it, that torture was not the policy of the United States of America. I agree with that. It's not. It should not be. But we need to make a very clear statement that it is not. Why? Because the rest of the world is looking at us and wondering what are the values that this great Nation we respect so much values?

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the President could have made a clear, unequivocal statement that this great Nation does not and will not torture those in our custody. He should have signed this important intelligence authorization conference report into law. But instead, he vetoed it, because it requires all American intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations.

Let us be clear: This veto was unfortunate and misguided. It threatens to further degrade America's moral standing as others have said, including Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State in this administration. It threatens to undermine our credibility in the international community and to expose our own military and intelligence personnel to the very same tactics and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt, and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men, women, and children in an effort to advance their twisted, demented aims. We can, we will, and we must prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction and say that their ends justify whatever means they may use.

During the current administration, we have seen the line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt, our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as well as the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is, and I quote, quaint. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The administration's advice that it got from counsel was that the Geneva Conventions against torture is, quote, quaint, close quote. I would suggest to you it is as relevant today as it was when it was signed.

These incidents and others sully our great Nation's good reputation and allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred. Requiring all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogation is an attempt by this Congress, passed by majorities in both Houses, to repair the damage that has already been done. Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our values.

Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq last May. I believe it has been quoted, but it bears repeating:

``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''

General Petraeus went on to say:

``Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. We must. However, 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.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote to override this unjustified and deeply misguided veto.