Video archive of the US Congress

House Proceeding on Feb 26th, 2010 :: 0:30:25 to 0:35:45
Total video length: 1 hours 13 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:445 Duration: 0:05:20 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Mac Thornberry

0:30:22 to 0:30:43( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: the very thoughtful, diligent and hardworking person from texas, a member of the select committee, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, since number of our colleagues were watching the events happening at the white house yesterday, like the gentleman from california, i think it's important to review

Mac Thornberry

0:30:25 to 0:35:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Mac Thornberry

Mac Thornberry

0:30:44 to 0:31:06( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: briefly the history of this legislation. the intelligence committee referred -- reported out h.r. 2701 out of committee on june 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. the rules committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on july 8, 2009. and from july 8, 2009, until

Mac Thornberry

0:31:07 to 0:31:27( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: february 24, 2010, it just sat there. no action. meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrist attacks or plots under -- for which our homeland. meanwhile, events changed in afghanistan, yemen, somalia, iran, all around the world

Mac Thornberry

0:31:28 to 0:31:49( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: things are changing but we couldn't find time on the house floor to deal with the intelligence authorization bill. we had important things to do. we had post offices to name. but then on february 24, 2010, rules committee reported te second rule out which included the mcdermott language as part of a manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments

Mac Thornberry

0:31:50 to 0:32:11( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: combined into one. and that mcdermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for our intelligence professionals. if they did things like deny terrorists a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a terrorist

Mac Thornberry

0:32:12 to 0:32:32( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define those religious beliefs. there was no standard of reasonableness there at all. and so throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events at the white house, we argued against that provision and yet it was defended on the other side of the aisle throughout the day.

Mac Thornberry

0:32:33 to 0:32:54( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: some people said, oh, it just restraints current law. mr. mcdermott said my amendment would have expanded on the president's executive order to define what constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading interrogation a have penalties for those that use those kind of interrogations.

Mac Thornberry

0:32:55 to 0:33:16( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: peop say it restates current law is just mistaken. some says it reflects american value. i don't know when it was our value to treat terrorists better than us. they went back to the rules committee a third time on this bill. and now this rule strips out that provision that the

Mac Thornberry

0:33:17 to 0:33:39( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: majority spent the whole day yesterday defending. now, i heard what the gentleman from california said. i'm not quite clear that i've understood why we've had this amazing turn of events. why the rules committee on wednesday night would say this provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment but on thursday night they say, no, we're going to

Mac Thornberry

0:33:40 to 0:34:00( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: have a rule that does nothing but strip it out? maybe they didn't know what the mcdermott language did. maybe they voted the way the speaker's office told them to vote. as a matter of fact, there's a report in "the washington times" today that says a house democratic aide told "the washington times" leadership supported the amendment and told them to put it in the provisions.

Mac Thornberry

0:34:01 to 0:34:21( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: maybe they were just persuaded by our ell against on the floor -- eloquence on the floor yesterday and decided it should be removed. i don't know. but this decision is deplorable. it needs to be scrapped. but it's a symptom, i would sugge that some in this body, some in

Mac Thornberry

0:34:22 to 0:34:44( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: thed a mfrlings on how they review -- some in the administration on how they view our intelligence officials. their first action is to blame the intelligence community first. they are appointed to go after our intelligence officials. we see it when classified interrogation memos are released despite the protestation of five former

Mac Thornberry

0:34:45 to 0:35:06( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: c.i.a. directors. can you yield five minutes? mr. dreier: i yield. mr. thornberry: when someone as distinguished as the speaker of the house under political pressure just accuses them of lying all the time. that's the sort of mentality that gets a provision made in order that mixing up t guys and bad guys and goes

Mac Thornberry

0:35:07 to 0:35:28( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: after the good guys and puts a higher standard on them than any county sheriff or state trooper in the country would have. mr. speaker, this is serious business. terrorists are plotting and planning to attack us every single day. it doesn't do our intelligence professionals much good if we give them nice words and then enact new crimes against them.

Mac Thornberry

0:35:29 to 0:35:45( Edit History Discussion )

Mac Thornberry: what counts is our actions. standing up for them and what they do to protect us. and i would suggest this bill needs to go a long way further in doing that but that strain that goes through this house and some in the administration to attack them first must be

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid