[Congressional Record: January 14, 2009 (Senate)]
[Page S397-S398]

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 248. A bill to prohibit the use of certain interrogation 
techniques and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on 
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on 
Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I 
introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and 
Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence 
Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other 
things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only 
in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was 
designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used 
by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might 
be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. 
Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach.
  First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the 
Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was 
meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. 
The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to 
a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our 
legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more 
importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all 
approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be 
conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and 
a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and 
  Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from 
the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees--
who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length 
by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of 
which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different 
from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield 
tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We 
are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence 
from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people 
involved and those potential operations they may undertake.
  The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit 
interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit 
them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to 
al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in 
interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value 
targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train 
for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard 
to figure out that if we tell them

[[Page S398]]

with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be 
used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we 
will not get anymore intelligence.
  The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than 
authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are 
allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better 
approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude 
the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. 
Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; 
No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or 
pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads 
of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, 
applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical 
pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using 
military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 
7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of 
adequate food, water, or medical care.
  Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described 
as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are 
similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field 
Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most 
important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the 
detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee 
does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though 
the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field 
Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled 
interrogator will get that information.
  I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh 
interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising 
the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be 
briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the 
opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. 
This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that 
are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply 
with law may be developed in the future.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. 
This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can 
adopt this legislation.