Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Now I wish to recognize Senator Ayotte for 4 minutes. We have got a lot of speakers here to talk about S. Res. 65. She has been there at every step of the way.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Cornyn and every person who spoke today and all the Senators who cosponsored this resolution. I thank Senator Reid for making the time available. Senator Menendez has been a terrific partner, the strongest voice one could hope for in having a partner on the Democratic side to stand at a time when it matters. In conclusion, on March 4, 2012, the President, President Obama, said ``when the chips are down, I have Israel's back.'' Mr. President, you were right then. Today the Senate will speak with one voice echoing what you said. There is a lot of wonderment about what is going to happen with the Iranian nuclear program. I hope and pray they stop their nuclear ambitions because they don't want a nuclear reactor, they want a nuclear weapon. If they ever get one we will never be safe, Israel will be under the gun for the rest of its existence, and they will share the technology with the terrorists. Every Sunni Arab state will want a nuclear weapon to counter the Shia Persians and all hell will break out beyond what it is today in the Mid-East. How do we prevent that? Sanctions, diplomacy, but the one thing we cannot have in doubt is what we would do if Israel had to act in her self-defense to stop the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that has promised to wipe the State of Israel off the map. After today, in about 10 or 15 minutes, I believe every Member of the Senate will be telling the Iranians we are not going to allow them to get a nuclear weapon because if we do, they will throw the world in chaos. It will threaten our very existence, as well as the State of Israel, but most important we are going to tell everybody in the Mid- East, throughout the world, in Tehran, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that if there is a conflict where Israel is justified in defending herself against a nuclear-capable Iran, we will be there for them. We will have their back. Where I come from, when we tell somebody, ``I have your back,'' that means if they get into a fight for their very life, they can count on us to be there. In this case, Israel can count on the American people, the Senate, and our Commander in Chief to be there. If that day ever comes, and I pray it does not, but if that day ever comes where Israel has to take military action, to our friends in Israel: We will be there with you every step of the way, diplomatically, economically, and, yes, militarily. To the Iranian people: We would love to have a better relationship with you. To the Iranian regime: You are one of the biggest evils on the planet. We will stand up to you. We will stand by our friends. And your desire to throw the world in chaos is never going to happen because we will be there when necessary to stop your ambitions. To every colleague who has taken time out to sponsor this resolution, taken time out to speak on the floor: Thank you. There is not much we agree on 100 percent, but I think today will be a major milestone in our efforts to secure Israel and the United States. I think today we will have 100 percent support by the Senate and stand by our friends in Israel and stand up to the thugs in Iran. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. I do not see any other speakers. I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to thank Senator McCain for his voice on this topic and any other topic that keeps America safe. I also thank Senator Menendez, without whom there would be no resolution. Senator Reid is not here, but I thank him for making the time available to have this vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I wish to recognize a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, one of the strongest voices on national security in the body, a new member but someone who understands the world and is a tremendous supporter of the United States-Israel relationship, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, for 4 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for a terrific speech. I would ask whether Senator Menendez minds if Senator McCain speaks.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will do this by age. Senator McCain is recognized for 5 minutes. That is not quite a minute a decade, but that will get us going.

Mr. GRAHAM. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Texas, a strong supporter of the United States-Israel relationship, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. This is about Dr. Ernie Moniz's appointment to be Secretary of Energy. I put a hold on Dr. Moniz. It has nothing to do with him. He is a wonderful fellow. He is an MIT professor. He has been amply associated with the Department of Energy, including the MOX Program. All of us in Georgia and South Carolina look forward to working with him. What we are upset about is the Obama administration's decision to temporarily stop construction on the MOX facility. It is about 60 percent complete. What is MOX? It is a program to take 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium in excess of our defense needs and dispose of it by turning it into commercial-grade fuel. It is enough weapons-grade plutonium to make 17,000 warheads. In 2000 there was an agreement between the United States and Russia: They would dispose of 34 metric tons and we would dispose of 34 metric tons. And we have been studying how to do that. In 2010 the Federal Government--and the Obama administration--in the agreement with the Russians to move forward, said we would MOX the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. We were to turn it into mixed oxide fuel to be used in commercial reactors, which was a technology deployed in France, and that was the way forward. To the administration's credit, we are finally moving forward. Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, and I went to the facility a couple of years ago and finally saw it moving forward. It is about 60 percent built. Now, in the budget proposal of the President, they stopped construction to study an alternative. There is no other alternative. If they try to turn it into vitrified glass material, that will take more money and more time than doing MOX, and it has not been proven to work the way it is set up today. At the end of the day, the problems we should be focusing on are the cost overruns of the MOX Program. It is about $2 billion over cost. I would join with the administration to sit down with a contractor and try to recoup that $2 billion to find a way forward and make it affordable. There are statutes in place that require a $100 million fine to be paid to the State of South Carolina if we don't meet our disposition goals. Last year we extended that statute by 2 years because we don't want the fine money, we want the MOX Program. It is good for the country, and it is good for the world. Now that we have stopped the study, our fear is that we are stopping and studying an alternative that doesn't exist, and it cannot be cheaper than $2 billion. There is no other way to do it. We have been studying this for about 15 years, and we will be breaking the agreement with the Russians. Other than that, we don't have a problem with what they are doing. What we want to do is sit down with the contractor and the administration and lower the costs of the program but keep it moving forward. This administration has talked consistently about reducing nuclear proliferation and making the world safer from the use of nuclear materials. This is a program that started in the Clinton administration--then Bush, and now Obama--that really would accomplish that. Thirty-four metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium--enough to make 17,000 warheads--would be taken off the market forever. In this way, a sword becomes a plowshare by making commercial-grade fuel out of it. It is a good program, and we need to complete the program. The reason we put a hold on the nominee for Secretary of Energy is to get everybody's attention. I have been talking with Dennis McDonough, and I have been talking with the administration. We hope we can resolve this, but we are here to speak for Georgia and South Carolina. We have a deal with the Federal Government. We agreed to take this 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium years ago with the understanding that it would leave South Carolina and not affect the environment of South Carolina and Georgia in a permanent way. We are very DOE-friendly in South Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah River site is right on the border. There are almost as many people from Georgia working at the site as there are from South Carolina. My colleagues from Georgia have been absolutely terrific. At the end of the day we are going to be insistent that the Federal Government keep its commitment to the States of South Carolina and Georgia and to the Russians. We are going to make sure we dispose of this weapons-grade plutonium, and we are going to be more cost- conscious about it. We are going to let Ernie Moniz become Secretary of Energy in 40 minutes. I will vote for him, but I will continue to slow down the process and make life incredibly miserable if we cannot find an accommodation that I think is fair. My State and the State of Georgia have been good partners with the Federal Government and the Department of Energy on energy issues. Several years ago, when I first became a Senator--I think it was in 2002 or 2003--we agreed to leave some waste in the bottom of about 50 tanks that contained high-level waste material from the Cold War era from reactors at the Savannah River site used to make tritium to help fuel hydrogen bombs. By leaving a small amount in the bottom of the tank--the heel--and filling it with concrete, we were able to save $16 billion in cleanup costs. Instead of scrapping it all out and sending it to Yucca Mountain, which never came about, we were able to leave a small amount that would not hurt the environment of South Carolina and Georgia. Now, in this budget they are reducing the tank closure by $106 million. We cannot do it that way. They cannot get us to help save money for the Federal Government and take on a reasonable risk--not much of a risk at all--and then short us. Whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration, people are going to stop dealing with the Federal Government when it comes to nuclear materials if this is the way we are going to do business. The people in Georgia and South Carolina have been very accommodating. We appreciate the Savannah River site. It is a wonderful DOE facility. We are proud of it, and we are proud of the employees. But we are not going to be taken advantage of. We are asking for the administration to sit down with us and others who care about this to find a way to lower the cost of the MOX construction but continue forward with the construction so we can get the MOX facility up and running. We need to honor our commitment to the Russians and get this weapons-grade plutonium off the market. Count us in in terms of lowering costs; count us out when it comes to stopping the program in the middle and trying to find an alternative that doesn't exist. As to the tanks, the Federal Government is going to honor its commitment to the people of South Carolina and Georgia to get these tanks closed up on time and on schedule. We have, again, saved $16 billion over the life of the close-up plan for the tanks just by being reasonable. When it comes to MOX, there were three facilities planned to take the weapons-grade plutonium and turn it into a commercial-grade fuel. We were able to consolidate two of the facilities into one and save $2 billion. I am all for saving money, but I am also all for keeping one's word. To our friends in the administration, we will work with you when we can, fight you when we must, but when it comes to this, I hope there will be a lot of bipartisanship for the delegations of South Carolina and Georgia to make sure we honor the commitment entered into between the Federal Government and the State of South Carolina that will affect our friends in Georgia and keep this program moving. We are not asking for too much. As a matter of fact, we are insisting on the Federal Government holding up its end of the bargain because we have held up our end of the bargain. To our friends in the administration, let's see if we can solve this problem. To my colleagues in this body, I hope I would have the good judgment and common sense to support the Members if anyone found themselves in this position of trying to do something good for the Nation and have it get off the rail. I hope I would be willing to help the other side when it comes to something such as this. It is very difficult to deal with these high-level waste issues, particularly weapons-grade plutonium. When we find somebody who is willing to be reasonable and helpful, the last thing that should be done is to change the rules in the middle of the game. With that, I will yield to Senator Isakson to just quickly ask him, from his point of view, does he see this as a fundamental breach of the agreement we have had for years, and what effect does he think it will have on our nonproliferation agenda and how does it affect South Carolina and Georgia?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues from Georgia.

Mr. GRAHAM. I can't thank Senator Isakson enough. Senator Scott has been with us at every step. But I want to let everybody in Georgia know that when it comes to the Savannah River site, we have worked as a team for years, and I just can't thank the Senator enough. Senator Chambliss is one of the leading national security experts in the Senate, and he has been intimately involved in the MOX program. My question for Senator Chambliss is, we have an agreement with the Russians; they will dispose of their 34 metric tons of excess plutonium--enough to create 17,000 warheads in Russia--and we have agreed to do the same. If we are seen to stop and not honor our commitment, what reaction does the Senator from Georgia think the Russians would have, and is it smart to delay this program in the times in which we live? I worry about the materials being compromised not so much in South Carolina and Georgia but very much in Russia. Could the Senator express his thoughts about that?

Mr. GRAHAM. Just to conclude, I wish to thank both of my colleagues. They have been great partners on this issue and many others. We have tried to be good partners with the Federal Government. We are proud of the Savannah River site and all that has been accomplished over the last 50 years. Now we are moving into a new phase of trying to get rid of Cold War materials--34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium here, and in Russia, 60 percent completion of the MOX program. As to the $2 billion overrun, that is not lost upon me as being a lot of money. That is a lot of money. But what I am telling my fellow Members of the body, and the country as a whole, there is no way we can find an alternative to MOX cheaper than that $2 billion. It is just not possible. We have been studying this forever, and in the agreement itself with the Russians, it specifically says MOX, and it prohibits us as a nation from burying the plutonium. So this is the way forward. I promise the Members of the body and the administration we will lower the cost overruns, I promise. This is a complicated scientific endeavor, but we will lower the cost overruns. What we will not do is stop the program when it is 60 percent complete and study an alternative that has no possibility of coming about scientifically and could never lower costs and interrupt the disposition of this weapons-grade plutonium and breach the agreement with the Russians. We will not be a party to that. We will keep talking. As to Mr. Moniz, he will be an outstanding Secretary of Energy. We look forward to working with him. I appreciate my colleagues coming down and joining me in this colloquy and putting everything on the record about the Savannah River site and MOX. With that, I yield the floor to Senator Reed.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Chambliss. I believe Senator Reed wishes to be recognized for a request.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. That would be a big contradiction. I will just yield to Senator Levin to answer the question and make his opening statement.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for his question. It was one of the most compelling trips I have ever made to the Middle East. We went to Turkey, Jordan, and we went to a refugee camp in Jordan. Some 40,000 Syrian children are now in Jordanian schools. The burden on Jordan is immense, but when you talk to the people in the camps, what they have gone through and what their loved ones have gone through is heartbreaking. From a national point of view, once you visit the camps, you understand what is at stake. They tell you about radical Islamists moving in. They want no part of them but at the end of the day they are having more influence because we are not in the fight. You can do this without boots on the ground. The most chilling thing they tell us, which Senator McCain, has been echoing for a long time, is their children are watching the United States. Like it or not, we have the reputation in the world that we can do almost anything. Well, we can't do almost anything, but we are seen as a force for good. The people in Syria are beside themselves wondering where is America. America, to them, is an idea. They want to be like us because it means freedom, and it means economic opportunity. It means having a say about your children's future. They are dumbfounded that we are not more involved, given the stakes that exist in Syria. They tell us without any hesitation that the young people of Syria will remember this moment. They will hold this against us. I think I know what the Senator is telling us. Here is the good news: There is still time to act. It doesn't have to end that way. The conditions in Syria are horrible. The refugee camps were beyond imagination. The U.N. is doing a great job, but they are running out of money. Jordan is about to fall if we don't stop this war. From a human point of view, we have got to get this war over and America needs to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. From a national security point of view, Syria is going to become a nightmare for the whole world, including the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would just like to echo what Senator McCain said about Senator Menendez. I would like to, for the record, note that the tide of war in Syria changed today because of what is happening on the floor of the Senate. That may be hard for people to understand, but I really do not think so. How do you change the tide of battle? You make it certain to the world that Asad will go, and you provide hope to those who are fighting him that they will prevail. I would suggest that a bipartisan consensus is forming in the Senate that now is the time to do more, not less, when it comes to Syria, including arming the rebels--the right rebels, the right opposition, with the right weapons, which will eventually change the tide of battle. So to those who have been following this debate about Syria, to those who have been in the fight trying to topple this regime, I cannot stress to you how important today is in your cause. When you get Senator Levin and Senator Menendez, two institutional, important figures because of their chairmanships, but beyond that, important because of who they are and what they bring to every debate around national security, combined with Senator McCain and others, you have turned the tide in Washington. As to Senator McCain, he has been talking in the most eloquent terms for at least a couple of years about stopping this war in Syria, ending the Asad regime and replacing it with something better. He has been right, as he usually is. But now is not the time to look backward, it is to look forward. I think an effort by the Senate and the House to acknowledge that the tide of war needs to change and we should be bolder in our support for the opposition is going to increase the likelihood of a peaceful solution through diplomacy. The Russians have to know, after today, if they know anything about American politics, the game has changed when it comes to Asad, and this is a monumental sea change in terms of the war in Syria by having four Senators who care about such matters of foreign policy to speak out and say we will support arming the rebels and being more involved militarily. To the opposition, this is a great day for you. To Asad, this seals your fate. Now, what do we do and how do we do it? It will not all end tomorrow because of this colloquy today, but we are well on the way to ending this war. Here is the choice: The current regime, which is evil to the core, and the imperfect opposition, which has been infected by radical Islam--you can fix the second one; you cannot fix the first. It is that simple to me. The sooner the war ends the better, not only for saving people in Syria from further slaughter, but preventing what I think would be an erosion of our national security interests in four areas. If this war goes 6 more months, a failed state will emerge in Syria. It will be so fractured you cannot put it back together. The 6,000 al-Qaida associated fighters will grow in number, and there will be a safe haven in Syria like there was in Afghanistan. That is not good for us. Unlike Afghanistan, there is enough chemical weapons in Syria to kill thousands if not millions of Americans and people who are our allies. I worry greatly not only that chemical weapons have been used in Syria on the opposition by the regime, but those same chemical weapons will be used in the future by radical Islamists against us. The next bomb that goes off in America may have more than nails and glass in it. The only reason millions of Americans or thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands have not been killed by radical Islamists is they cannot get the weapons to kill that many of us. They would if they could. I have never seen a better opportunity for radical Islamists to get ahold of weapons of mass destruction than I see in Syria today. Every day that goes by their opportunity to acquire some of these weapons grows dramatically. If you ask me what I worry the most about with Syria and why we should get involved, it is for that very reason. If these weapons get compromised, they are going to fall into the hands of the people who will use them against us, and to believe otherwise would be incredibly naive. Jordan. Probably the most stabilizing figure in the Mideast in these dangerous times is the King of Jordan. His country is being overrun by refugees. If this war goes on 6 more months, that is probably the end of his kingdom because it will create economic chaos and political instability. He will be a victim of the civil war in Syria, and it will have monumental consequences for our national security. As we talk about Syria and chemical weapons falling into radical Islamists' hands, we are dealing with a radical regime in Iran that is marching toward building a nuclear weapon. If you think the ayatollahs in Iran are trying to build a nuclear powerplant at the bottom of a mountain, you are wrong. They are trying to build a nuclear weapon to ensure their survivability. God only knows what they would do with nuclear technology. But if you believe what they say, they would wipe Israel off the map, and we would be next. I tend to believe what they say. If you allow Syria to continue to deteriorate and have a hands-off policy toward Asad, then I think you are sending the worst possible signal to Iran. As Senator Levin said, really the only ally Iran has today is Asad in Syria. How can we convince the Iranians we are serious about their nuclear problem when we do not seem to be very serious about Asad using chemical weapons against his own people? What a terrible signal to send at one of the most important times. I would end with this thought: This bipartisan consensus that is emerging today is going to pay great dividends. It is going to be helpful to the President. We can end this war sooner rather than later. But no matter what happens, there is going to be a second war in Syria, unfortunately. That second war is going to be between radical Islamists who want to turn Syria into some kind of al-Qaida-inspired state, and the overwhelming majority of Syrians who want to live a better life and be our friends, not our enemies. This war will occur after the fall of Asad. But it will end the right way. The sooner we get the first war over, the shorter the second war will be. I think we can bring this war to a close without boots on the ground. The sooner we act the better. One last thought. To the opposition, you would be helping your cause if you would let the world know that you do not want Asad's chemical weapons; that the new Syria will not be a state that wants weapons of mass destruction; that you would agree these weapons should be controlled by the international community and destroyed; that you would agree to an international force coming on the ground with your blessing the day after Asad falls to secure these weapons and destroy them for all time. I think you would be helping your cause. So I say to Senator McCain, I really appreciate his leadership for a couple of years. But persistence does matter in politics and all things that are important. I think the Senator's persistence is paying off. I say to Senator Menendez and Senator Levin, what they have done today joining up in a bipartisan fashion is going to pay great dividends for our own national security interests. The way forward is pretty clear. I say to President Obama, we want to be your ally. We want to be your supporter. We want you to get more involved, not less. We realize it is hard. We realize there are risks no matter what we do. But as Senator McCain said before, the risk of doing nothing by continuing on the current track is far greater than getting involved in ending the war sooner.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Very simply put, I have two goals. I think Americans want two things to happen in this case. They want the surviving suspect to be brought to justice. I am glad he survived, as hopefully we may learn some information from him that will make us all safer in the future. I am pleased he survived so we may try him in a court of law, before a Federal court in Massachusetts, to hold him accountable for his crimes. In the trial, he will be given a lawyer. He has the right to remain silent. He will be tried by a jury. He will be given all the rights associated with a Federal court trial. He is an American citizen, and we have never suggested otherwise. As one of the primary authors of the 2009 Military Commissions Act, I expressly exempted American citizens from military commission trials. Why? I wanted to reserve that system for foreign terrorists. It doesn't mean I don't believe there will be domestic terrorism. It doesn't mean I don't envision an American citizen helping the foreign enemy. I do. Every war, unfortunately, we have been in during the history of our country, American citizens have joined forces and sided with the enemy. This is not an unusual event. What would be unusual is to say one could do so and not be treated under the law of war. We would be making history if we adopted that view. Let me begin with a case in World War II. German saboteurs landed in Long Island. They had been planning for years an effort to come to our country. These were Germans who had lived in our country and went back to Germany and became Nazis. Because they spoke good English, they were recruited by the German intelligence service to come back and plan massive attacks on our homeland. They had a cell here in America, some of whom were American citizens who joined the plot. Thanks to the great FBI work of this time and day, as soon as they landed the plot was foiled and the American citizens were captured. In 1944, 1945, and possibly as late as 1946, the American citizens who aided the German saboteurs were held as enemy combatants and tried in a military court. Three of them were hanged. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said: When you join the forces of our enemy, you are committing an act of war, not a common crime. Tokyo Rose sided with the Japanese. She was tried and given a life sentence. Since 9/11, there have been three American citizens who have been involved with al-Qaida or the Taliban or affiliated groups. They have been held as enemy combatants. They have gone to trial in civilian court and the courts have blessed the holding of American citizens as enemy combatants. Rumsfeld v. Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan held under the law of war as an enemy combatant. He was eventually tried and the Court said, as in World War II, we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant, recognizing the difference between a common crime and the law of war. Mr. Padilla was held 4 years by the Bush administration. His case went up to the Fourth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit said: Yes, you can hold enemy combatants off the battlefield. That is the power the United States possesses at a time of war. When you are fighting a war, the goal is to win the war and to find out about what the enemy is up to. When you are fighting a crime, the goal is to convict someone or have them found innocent. They are two different systems. This young man will be going to Federal Court and a jury will decide if he is guilty of his crimes. What we are asking of the administration is: How do you gather intelligence in that system? It is not meant to gather intelligence. We don't want to limit ourselves as a Nation to asking questions about future attacks in the criminal justice system because here is the way that works. If I am his lawyer, I am not going to let you ask him any question about anything until I get a benefit for my client. So intelligence gathering now is controlled by the terror suspect and his lawyer. Is that smart? Now you are having to plea bargain to get intelligence. What we are saying is, conduct the trial in civilian court--the only form available--but because there are international terrorist connections here--clearly they killed people in Boston not because they wanted their property or they were mad with the Boston city government, they killed--they slaughtered a young boy and his family and others because they have adopted a radical jihadist view of us as a Nation. The older brother was quoted as saying we are infidels, we are a colonial Christian power, we have corrupted Islam. They are trying to kill us and destroy our way of life because of what we believe. The sooner we understand that, the better off we will be. Here is my view about defending ourselves as a Nation. A criminal court is about due process and giving the accused a fair trial. Military intelligence gathering is about defending the Nation at war. The question we all have to answer for ourselves is: Is America at war? The answer, to me, is yes. We are at war with a radical ideology that hates everything we stand for. Bin Laden is dead. We celebrate that. But al-Qaida is very much on the march. As a matter of fact, radical Islam is regenerating, and the way they are coming after us is to find people in our own backyard and turn them against us. How could we have missed this? How could the intelligence services in Russia tell the FBI: You need to watch this guy; we believe he is a radical Islamist coming to your country to hurt you? How could we miss him going to Russia and coming back? How could we miss his YouTube videos where he is ranting and raving against us and threatening to take us down as a Nation? These are questions to be asked and answered. And here is what we are suggesting: The surviving suspect, due to the ties these two have to radical Islamic thought, and the ties to Chechnya, one of the most radical regions in the world, the President should declare preliminarily that the evidence suggests this man should be treated as an enemy combatant. We could hold him for a period of time, question him without a lawyer, and none of the evidence could be used against him in the criminal proceeding. That is the best way to gather intelligence. The best way to gather intelligence is to have a rapport with him, take down the stories he is telling us and deconstruct them; spend time with him outside the criminal justice system. We have gathered so much good intelligence from enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. You won't send him to Guantanamo Bay, but during the last decade we have exploited intelligence from enemy combatants-- people who have joined the other side--and it has helped us figure out how to defend ourselves and find bin Laden. All we are saying is when it comes to defending against future attacks, we want to talk to him without a lawyer. That is all we are saying. We want to talk to him without a lawyer so we can find out what he may know about what we face in the future, and when it comes to prosecuting him, we won't use anything we found against him. A first- year law student could convict him, but, my God, look what we are losing as a Nation by using this model. Instead of taking time out to interrogate him without the presence of counsel to learn about what did happen, we are now stuck in a criminal justice system where we can't ask him one question his lawyer won't allow. I am not blaming the lawyer. My goodness, if I were his defense lawyer, no one would ask him one thing without my permission, and they would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. All I am suggesting is we are at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they are tied to overseas organizations potentially, so why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack, to make the rest of us safer. I believe in due process. And he, in that system, can go to a judge and say, I am not an enemy combatant, and the government would have to prove he is. So he has due process there. But here is what I believe deeply, and then I will turn it over to Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. I believe the closer one gets to our homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. I don't want a police state. I don't want to live in a country where we can't express who we are and what we believe in and to argue and have a different view of religion. But, by God, given the times in which we live, I don't want to become deaf and blind to the threats that are real in our own backyard. I want a system that can find out about guys like this before they kill us. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't gather good intelligence and we don't hit them before they hit us, there is more to come.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire, how do we get the death penalty when the only way we can get information out of the suspect is to go through his lawyer? If we can't have this national security interrogation, where there is no lawyer, to get information to protect against a future attack that can't be used in a trial, don't you think the lawyer is going to say: I am not going to have my client talk to you unless you promise not to seek the death penalty?

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Not only do I agree, who picked the battlefield? I didn't pick America to be the battlefield. I don't want to be at war with anybody. They chose the battlefield. Where do you think they want to hit us most, I ask Senator McCain? If you could get the top leadership and give them one shot at America anywhere, where would they take that shot? Would they hit us in France? They would hit us here. Why? Because they want to destroy our way of life. They are trying to come here to kill us. All I am suggesting is we should be able to defend ourselves. And the closer they get to us, the more rights to defend ourselves we should have. Let me say I asked the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps: Is the authorization to use military force against al-Qaida, the Taliban, or affiliated groups limited to outside the United States? They said: No, there is no geographic limitation. So if somebody hijacked a plane tomorrow trying to fly it into the Capitol, our military could shoot it down. We are not going to restrict ourselves to the battlefield being everywhere else but in our own backyard.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, if I may, hats off to the Boston, MA, police officers, to the Presiding Officer's town. Our heart breaks for the victims. Bostonians made us proud. They show us how to stay brave. The FBI and everybody did a great job, but how we missed this I still want to know. The Senator from New Hampshire was the former attorney general of New Hampshire. She knows the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime. I have been a military lawyer, I have been a civilian lawyer, and I am all very much for the idea of due process being given to everyone charged with a crime, including this man. He deserves to be presumed innocent, to have a lawyer, and a jury to find him guilty or innocent. He deserves all that because it makes us better and safer. But what we should not give up as a Nation is the ability to find out about future attacks in a logical way. We are at war, and in the law of armed conflict, national security applies here, in my view, because of the type of incident involved and the threats we face. I wish to hear from Senator Ayotte, who has become one of the most knowledgeable people on the topic. She has tried people in New Hampshire--death penalty cases--and if she doesn't mind, perhaps she can share with us her view of where the battlefield is, what kind of laws to apply to a situation such as this.