Lawmakers shown two sides of torture bill

White House, constituents have different views on extent of legislation

? Congressional negotiators are feeling heat from the White House and constituents as they consider whether to back a Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody or weaken the prohibition, as the White House prefers.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department.

Meanwhile, some newspapers are calling for lawmakers to support Sen. John McCain’s provision that would bar the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

“There’s a lot of public pressure to retain the language intact. At the same time, there’s pressure from the vice president’s office to modify it,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which supports McCain’s provision.

In a meeting last week with McCain, R-Ariz., Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss suggested language that would exclude clandestine counterterrorism operations overseas by agencies other than the Pentagon “if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that the president has “made our position very clear: We do not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture.”

McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he rejected the administration’s proposal because “that would basically allow the CIA to engage in torture.”

It is unclear how much influence McCain has in the negotiations to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the $445 billion defense bill. McCain will not be involved directly in those talks.

Among those leading the negotiations will be Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., who head the defense spending subcommittees.

Young has said the U.S. has no obligation to terrorists, and he and other top House Republicans have signaled they will try to change the Senate-approved language.

Stevens, who voted against it in the Senate, has said the language is too broad in applying to agents who work undercover. He has said the administration shares that concern.

This month, the Senate added the ban and the interrogation standards to its defense bill by a 90-9 vote. The administration threatened a veto if the president’s ability to conduct the war was restricted.

The House bill did not include McCain’s plan, which also would require the military to follow the Army Field Manual when imprisoning and questioning suspects in the fight against terrorism.