Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for giving a very good explanation of where we started and where we are today and where we hope to be in the future. Where we started was a situation where China saw no self-interest in allowing their currency to meet international monetary standards of being valued by the market. The practice of pegging the yuan to the dollar has created a tremendous manufacturing disadvantage for our manufacturers. It has hurt every competitor China deals with. It is a practice that needs to change because China has changed. Our goal is to allow that change to come about in a reasoned way, in a win-win fashion. The change that occurred, as Senator Schumer spoke about, where there was a slight revaluation, was a very good signal coming from China. It was an optimistic event. Since then, 4 months later, very little has happened. I know the President is going to put it on the table when he goes to China. We stand behind our President in this regard, that we in the Senate, 67 of us, anyway, and the President, through Secretary Snow, and the President himself, have been urging the Chinese to change their currency practices. It is the position of the administration that it should float, while it is also the position of the Senate that China needs to change their currency practices. As Alan Greenspan has said so well, it is in China's self-interest. I do hope, as Senator Schumer said, that after this meeting with President Bush there will be further progress. So I am guardedly optimistic but resolved to make sure we have a level playing field when it comes to dealing with China. This is an opportunity for a win-win. I hope the Chinese will take us up on it and we can have a better relationship. This one issue is one of the defining moments in the U.S.-China relationship economically and we will see what time yields in terms of these negotiations. I yield back all time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing us to have this time. I have a unanimous consent request to make for the Record. This has been approved by the majority leader and minority leader. I ask unanimous consent that the consent agreement relating to S. 295, which is a bill about China currency, which was entered on July 1, be modified so that it is applicable under the same terms including any days in December that the Senate is in session but under no circumstances no later than March 31, 2006, with all other provisos remaining. At this time, I yield to my colleague from New York.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a serious and very important vote. During the debate last week, I made a statement about what rights our troops would have. Our troops, once they are charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, get appeal rights under the military system, and they do have habeas rights about their criminal misconduct. What I am trying to say--I got it wrong--is when our troops are enemy prisoners there is no right to appeal to the civil courts wherever they may be, nor has there ever been a right for an enemy prisoner to go to our court. Senator Kerry gave me some good advice. I misstated, and I am sorry. But the concept of an enemy prisoner or enemy combatant not having access to civilian courts has been the tradition of 200 years. We are about to end this whole endeavor on a high note. I thank Senator Kyl for being a very constructive finder of solutions, and I thank Senator Levin for going that extra mile to find a way we can leave this issue with honor. This Levin-Graham-Kyl amendment allows every detainee under our control to have their day in court. They are allowed to appeal their convictions, if they are tried by military commissions--a model that goes back for decades to the Federal courts of this country, if they get a sentence of 10 years or the death penalty. We are going to have court review. An enemy combatant will not be left at Guantanamo without a court looking at whether they are properly characterized. We are doing it in a way consistent with the law of armed conflict, in an orderly way. I am proud that we are because this is a war of values. We can win this war without sacrificing our values, and part of our values is due process, even for the worst among us. I thank Senator Levin very much. Senator Specter's stated that the Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is the primary court to hear these cases, but the Supreme Court can receive a certiorari petition from that court.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, last week we had a debate and vote on whether an enemy combatant terrorist al-Qaida member should be able to have access to our Federal courts under habeas like an American citizen. Senator Bingaman is trying to strip that part of the amendment. He is consolidating the habeas petitions into the DC Court of Appeals, but habeas still lies with a standard you can drive a truck through. The court would look at the lawfulness of the detention which would allow, in my opinion, the ability of a terrorist to go into the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and start asking for Internet access under the right of counsel. It is a never-ending process that should never have begun anyway. I urge a ``no'' vote to make sure the right of appeal is consistent with the law of armed conflict and we do not have unfettered right of court access by enemy combatants to sue us over everything to undermine the war effort. I ask a ``no'' vote consistent with the last vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. That would be fine. I would like an extra minute. Senator Kerry gave me some very good advice, and I will take it if I am given the time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute to set the record straight.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2524 to Amendment No. 2515

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. No.

Mr. GRAHAM. So I have to pick whom I like best?

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, how does this affect the debate on the Energy and Water conference report?

Mr. GRAHAM. By how long?

Mr. GRAHAM. I have no objection.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator add my name, please?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have letters in support of my amendment printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, we have a fundamental difference. I do not want everyone to have habeas rights. I do not want the enemy combatant al- Qaida terrorist to be able to go in our courts and start to sue our own troops. I don't want it. I don't think people in this body want it. I do not think the American people want it. I want al-Qaida members to be detained in armed conflict. They should not have due process rights beyond what the Geneva Conventions ever envisioned. As to Senator Bingaman's amendment, he talks about they can't base claims on living conditions, but listen to this: Whether the status determination was supported by sufficient evidence and reached in accordance with due process of law, provided that statements obtained through undue coercion, torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment may not be used as a basis for the determination, and consideration of lawfulness of the detention of such alien. You could drive an army of trucks through those legal exceptions. What it would do is legitimize this request by a Canadian detainee, who threw a grenade and killed an American medic, in moving for a preliminary injunction forbidding the interrogation of him or engaging in cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of him. In other words, under this amendment, that claim stands. He could come in and ask a Federal judge: I want you sitting there while they interrogate me. And we are turning the war away from military people to Federal judges. We can't do that. We will compromise our own defense, our own freedom. As to the people at Guantanamo Bay who are going to be charged with a crime, I am working with Senator Levin to come up with a military commission model we all can be proud of. There are 490 enemy combatants down there who are not going to be charged with crimes, and if we allowed them unfettered freedom to have courts, to have judges control military interrogation and get into the bowels of running this war--not only has it never been done, but I challenge anybody to bring one case down here where an enemy prisoner has been able to go into Federal court and complain about their detention. Once you have a combatant charged with a crime, you are working with 490 of them who are going to have unfettered access under 2241 unless Congress acts. If you want to stop this kind of litigation and not turn over the war to Federal judges, then you need to tell the courts that 2241 does not apply. No law in the history of armed conflict has allowed this to happen and it needs to not happen now. Twelve people have been released down there under the procedures we already have, and they have gone back to try to kill us. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perfect. We may let some people go who go back to the fight, but what we are going to do is we are going to have a process we can be proud of that fairly determines who an enemy combatant is and who is not following the Geneva Conventions law of armed conflict. We are not going, with my amendment, to turn the al- Qaida member into an American citizen suing us for anything they can think of about due process of law and as to where they have been detained. This is a fundamental moment in terms of values in the law of armed conflict. The American value system is being maintained by due process and then some. The American value system that you can allow people who are trying to kill you unfettered access to the Federal courts to sue your own troops--if that becomes our value, we are going to lose this war. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may have the same courtesy and have 4 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't mind if the Senator wants 4 more minutes to speak on his amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will try to retain 1 minute. Let it be said that the people who attacked us on 9/11 committed an act of war, not a crime, and they are going to be tried under military commissions, not in our Federal courts, because they are engaged in a war and they are violating the law of armed conflict. They will get their day in court and we will come up with a fair process to make sure they have their day in court, but we are not going to take a war and turn it into a crime. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis of our trade deficit. What percentage does the Senator believe is directly attributable to unfair trade practices on behalf of the Chinese? It is one thing to be outworked. If people work harder than you do and are smarter than you are, shame on you. But I believe, as the Senator does, that a lot of the market share that we are losing in the trade deficit explosion has to do with Chinese Government policy when it comes to trade behavior rather than just simply outworking the American worker. What is the Senator's view on that?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Never hesitant to support missions in support of our national defense, the residents of South Carolina took considerable risk by allowing shipments of defense plutonium to be sent to the Savannah River Site from Rocky Flats and other DOE sites in advance of the construction of the MOX plant. In addition to supporting DOE's efforts to consolidate plutonium and accomplish the goals of the plutonium disposition program, this agreement greatly assisted DOE's efforts to expeditiously close Rocky Flats, resulting in considerable cost savings for DOE. In a sign of good faith to the State of South Carolina, language was negotiated between the State of South Carolina and the Federal Government that required the Department of Energy to convert one metric ton of defense plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors by 2011 or face penalties of $1 million per day up to $100 million per year until the plutonium is either converted into the fuel or removed from the State. It has never been the intention of South Carolina to receive penalty payments; the residents of the State simply sought reassurances that weapons-grade plutonium would not remain at SRS indefinitely. South Carolina would not have accepted plutonium without this statute. However, until the plant is operational, it is critical to maintain the protections provided in Section 4306 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, 50 USC 2566. This is the reassurance the Federal Government gives to South Carolina that it is DOE's intention to see this project through.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and look forward to working with him to continue to fully support the construction and operation of the MOX facility. Clarification on Funds

Mr. GRAHAM. It is also my intention to make a technical correction, in the future, to language contained in the conference report to the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. This conference report contains a change to important authorizing language that would make these penalty payments ``subject to the availability of appropriations.'' I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from New Mexico to see that this is resolved.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.