assertion of this bill and the assertion of lindsey graham today that i would suggest to you that graham levin a mccain of added a victory to osama bin laden even though he's dead bin laden came out years ago and said that it was his goal to fundamentally change the nature and character of the united states here are some quotes from him he said quote i tell you freedom and human rights in america are doomed u.s. government will lead the american government in and the west in general into an unbearable hell and a choking life this was in two thousand and one interview with al jazeera bin laden said that americans would give up their freedoms in exchange for security member ben franklin a warning us about that he said free people do not relinquish their security this is contrary to bush's claim that we ate freedom let him tell us why we did not strike sweden for example. it was from a video broadcast on al-jazeera two thousand and four bin laden said that america was becoming more authoritarian of the bush administration and was being run by outlaws rather than the rule of law he said we have no

levin: will the senator yield for a a question? mr. graham: yes. mr. levin: the christmas day bomber. i believe he was taken off that plane in detroit, intier debated by the -- interrogated by the f.b.i. is that correct? mr. graham: yes, sir, i think so. mr. levin: nothing wrong with that. the executive branch worked here. we make it flexible. this is something which i have heard today from the supporters of this amendment. they want flexibility. that's exactly what we provide in this amendment. that's the question senator mccain just asked. if this administration or any administration decides that they want to provide the opportunity to interrogate for whatever length they want, they're going to set the procedures under this language in our bill -- is that correct? -- the president will determine the procedure. if he wants those procedures to be under civilian control until some point, that is going to be up to the president. you may disagree with that or not. mr. graham: exactly. mr. levin: there are members of our body that very strongly disagree wit

levin: is it does not. mr. graham: but what senator feinstein is proposing is that no larning do you have the option of holding the american citizen as an enemy combatant to gather intelligence and you don't have the ability to hold them for a period of time, to inteainterrogate them under thew of war. the information we receive from guantanamo detainees has been invaluable to this nation's defense and to those who believe it was because of waterboarding, i couldn't disagree more. the chief reason we've been able to gather good intelligence at guantanamo bay is because of time. the detainee is being humanely treated, but there is no requirement under military law to let the enemy prisoner go at a certain period of time. so if you take away the ability to hold an american citizen who has associated himself with al qaeda to be held as an enemy combatant, you can no longer use the technique of intier debating them over time to find out what they know about the enemy. er you're worried abouyou're prt prosecuting them. i'm

but here's my point: the levin-mccain-graham provision in this bill on detainees is a compromise. it's a reasonable, effective, bipartisan compromise. it's the kind of compromise that doesn't happen here enough. and so i support it because even though i might have wished it would have gone further, so to speak, it's a lot better than the status quo. i say that at this moment because i really urge our colleagues who now want to come in with other amendments to essentially undo this bipartisan compromise, can do great damage. i'm saying myself, i wish it had not given the president the power to waive that he has under -- under the bill and take somebody to an enemy combatant to a normal article 3 federal court. but this provision is a real step forward against -- from the status quo. and i think if we can say that, then we ought to support it. so i hope that our colleagues will think twice before trying to undo the compromise and if they do go forward with it that our colleagues on the floor will defeat those amendments. mr. graham: ,mr. president, i i'll wrap this up. i know we hav

graham: ten minutes. is that too much? five minutes? mr. levin: we have seven speakers on this side. try for eight minutes? mr. graham: i will try to do it as quick as i can. okay. mr. mccain: we have had plenty -- a long time from the previous proponent of the bill. we have had ten minutes from the senator from illinois. i yield the senator from south carolina ten minutes. mr. levin: the senator from arizona will control, if this is all right with the senator, half of our time, would that be all right? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. can you let me know when five minutes are passed because there are a lot of voices to be heard on this issue and i want them to be heard. i'm just one. and let me just start with my good friend from colorado. i respect you. i know what you are -- i know your concerns, i just don't agree. i can remember being told by the bush administration we don't need the detainee treatment act. everybody said we didn't need it, but they were wrong. i remember being told by the vice president's office during the bush administration it's

graham: ten minutes. is that too much? five minutes? mr. levin: we have seven speakers on this side. try for eight minutes? mr. graham: i will try to do it as quick as i can. okay. mr. mccain: we have had plenty -- a long time from the previous proponent of the bill. we have had ten minutes from the senator from illinois. i yield the senator from south carolina ten minutes. mr. levin: the senator from arizona will control, if this is all right with the senator, half of our time, would that be all right? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. can you let me know when five minutes are passed because there are a lot of voices to be heard on this issue and i want them to be heard. i'm just one. and let me just start with my good friend from colorado. i respect you. i know what you are -- i know your concerns, i just don't agree. i can remember being told by the bush administration we don't need the detainee treatment act. everybody said we didn't need it, but they were wrong. i remember being told by the vice president's office during the bush administration it's

senator baucus. 1280 on behalf of senator mccain. 1298 on behalf of senators webb and graham. 1303 on behalf of senators levin and mccain. 1315 on behalf of senator hatch. 1317 on behalf of senator portman. 1324 on behalf of senator cochran. 1326 on behalf of senator risch. 1332 on behalf of senators lieberman and cornyn. mr. mccain: i concur. i move the package. mr. levin: i understand they have been cleared -- mr. mccain: cleared on this side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask consent the senate consider these amendments en bloc, that the modifications at the desk be adopted, the amendments be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i thank the presiding officer. i thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation. i thank senator mccain and our staffs. we're going to continue to work to clear additional amendments following the cloture vote. we're now voting on cloture. we all, as leaders, the managers, of course hope this will pass. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona

senators levin, mccain, lindsay graham, and others have worked very hard to try to work out one of the problem areas we've had and significant progress has been made there. it really doesn't matter. i've spoken to one democratic senator and he still isn't real happy about that information that's in that bill but i told him that we offer an amendment very quickly and he could try to assert his position. i think that's how we should do things around here. i ask unanimous consent following morning business tomorrow, thursday, november 17, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 230, s. 1867 which is the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: it would seem appropriate, mr. president, we move to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu:, mr. president, --. mr. reid: if i could ask my friend to withhold for a minute. it's important to announce because of this there will be no roll call votes tonight.

graham: does the senator agree with senator levin and a very bipartisan work product, we've now created a legal system that says the following: if a u.s. citizen, a non-u.s. citizen is involved in an al qaeda attack on our nation and is captured here within the united states, we're allowing our military the ability to hold them as part of the enemy force, to question and interrogate them for intelligence gathering, and that that right we have overseas to hold somebody now exists in the united states because the threat is the same. ms. ayotte: i would say to my colleague from south carolina when you spoke on the floor, you really captured the most important part of this, which is without the amendment that we have here that we've been debating, we do not even give our military law enforcement intelligence officials the ability to decide which system is best in each instance, and because, rightly so when you're in our country, when you're an american citizen, you are given your miranda rights, told you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to have a lawyer, and we need to ma

one that senator ayotte and i discussed on the floor yesterday along with senator graham and senator mccain and senator levin regarding detainee policy, of which we have none at the present time, and for which folks like senator ayotte have given a great deal of thought to and have come up with some very logical ways in which we can address this issue of the detainees so that we can get actionable intelligence from those detainees and at the same time ensure that they are treated in ways that are respectful to our system of jurisprudence on the military side as well as on the civilian side. i want to also say that we've had a couple of hick-ups along the way -- hiccups along the way but staff on both sides, both the majority and minority have addressed those hiccups and we have been working very closely to try to ensure that the issues that we raised with staff after the bill was filed have been addressed and are in the process of being taken care of. as a reflection of the extremely tight budget environment, we have taken responsible reductions in spending. however, we maintain our commitment to the armed f

levin: i'll yield 30 seconds to senator graham. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: section 1031 is a congressional statement of authority of already existing law. it reaffirms the fact that this body believes al qaeda and affiliated groups are a military threat to the united states and they can be held under the law of war indefinitely to make sure we find out what they're up to and can be questioned in a humane manner consistent with law of war. 1032 says if you're captured on the homeland, you'll be held in military custody so we can gather intelligence. that provision can be waived if it interferes with the investigation. these are needed changes. these are changes that re -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: mr. president, the supreme court has recently ruled the following. that there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. this is the supreme court speaking. "a citizen no less than

graham helped craft. >> before i make a statement, i would like to recognize carl levin. carl is doing something difficult, and standing up for visions that he believes are making the country safer against his own pearlt's objections. i remember the objections and other things that i wanted to do with senator mccain. carl levin is represented the armed services committee in the way that we all would like to view it, bipartisan. the provisions that are being questioned on the floor passed 25-1, bipartisan support. here's what we are trying to do. america is about to become a safer place. 10 years ago, we were attacked by al qaeda. the congress authorized the use of military force saying you could go after these guys, detain them under the law and they are a military threat. al qaeda is not a criminal organization. al qaeda is a military threat to this nation. 10 years later, the congress is reaffirming that authority. there are 48 people at guantanamo bay who have been held for years as enemy combatants without criminal trials. they have available for a review where a fede

graham: thank you. i would like to rise in support of the statements made by senators mccain and levin. i don't have that good feeling about iraq, quite frankly. i'm not confident at all that the worst is behind us. i'm hopeful that we can withdraw our troops and nothing bad will happen in iraq. but as senator levin just described, the implications of repealing the authorization to use military force are wide, varied and uncertain. and what do you get by tpraoelg this? -- by repealing this 1234* you can go back home and said you did something that -- i don't know what you get. i really don't. i don't know what we gain as a nation by taking the contingencies of using military force off the table as we try to wind down. i just don't see the upside, quite frankly. i know the reality of what our troops face and why the department of defense would want to continue to have this authorization until we get iraq behind us. at the end of the day, 4,400 people-plus have lost their lives. thousands have been wounded and maimed. not counting the iraqis have losted their lives and been wounded and ma

know senator graham was down here, who's been very, very active on this issue and has tremendous amount of experience. i look forward to the continuing debate, and i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president, i just want to thank the senator from new mexico again for the comments but also to tell him how very much impressed i have been right from the first day i heard him with his open-mindedness on subjects. that's very, very important that we keep open minds. and he has shown just how to do that. we appreciate that on an issue this complex, particularly in the defense bill. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, our staff are working on various amendments that we could get approved by both sides. we think there are a number of those that we can get agreement on to make progress today. while we are going through that process, i'd like to point out that the front page of this morning's "wall street journal,

graham national guard empowerment amendment which is senate amendment number 107. i was just discussing with the distinguished leaders of the armed services committee, senators levin and mccain, the possibility of a time to bring that amendment up for a vote. but let me just, while we're in quorum calls anyway, let me talk a little bit about what the amendment is. over the past decade, as we all know, the national guard has undergone a profound, actually an historic change. once it was a hollow force he considered only a strategic reserve for nightmare contingencies but instead the national guard has become an operational reserve that deploys in regular rotation with thive-duty force. as a matter of policy and reality our army and air national guard troops from states around the country shoulder their load overseas but they also carry a disproportionate share of the domestic response and disaster relief mission at home including responding to terrorist events. yet institutional support for the national guard still lags behind its operational role. i think when i've been on battlefields whether iraq, afghanistan, or elsewhere, and i talk to the commanders there, th

graham: i'd like to thank senator mccain and senator levin for organizing this debate on a way that we maybe can get closure tonight. the chairman and ranking member have been helpful pushing forward an amendment where we have 71 cosponsors, to senator leahy, it's been a privilege and a joy working with you on this. we had 1 members of the senate -- 71 members of the senate sign on to the legislation. it's simple. it says the chief of the national guard bureau will now be a member of the joint chiefs. what does that mean in the real world? it means that the citizen soldier's voice will be heard at the highest levels of our government. after 1947 we reorganized the defense department, became the modern defense department with the joint chiefs wroo we have representatives from the marine corps, the air force, the army, the navy and now the citizen soldier. why is it important? after 9/11 the guard's role in defending this nation has changed substantially. the guard and reserves but particularly the guard on the front lines of homeland security defense, they have dual missions, the first