Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 upon the table.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator McCain and our staffs. We are going to continue to work to clear additional amendments following the cloture vote. We are now voting on cloture. We all as leaders and managers, of course, hope that this will pass.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the only additional suggestion I would have is that Members who come here who have amendments that are both pending and germane, assuming we get cloture, if they could check with us, either side here, to see where they are on the chronology, they will get a feel as to where they are, because we are going to attempt to move down the chronology as amendments were made pending. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cardin amendment, No. 1073, be withdrawn. That has the approval of the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. It is a balanced amendment which deals with a very complex situation. What Senator Corker is doing is pointing out very important facts. One is that Pakistan has received a lot of funds from the United States for this particular purpose which is aimed at helping the success of our operations in Afghanistan. The whole purpose of the coalition support fund is to reimburse Pakistan for the support they provide--for instance, in providing security for trucks and other equipment that is going through Pakistan that have oil, fuel, food going into Afghanistan to support the effort in Afghanistan. That is the purpose of these funds. It is a good purpose. This is not a foreign aid deal; this is a reimbursement deal. The problem is that while on the one hand the Pakistanis are assisting us, on the other hand they are assisting our enemy and the enemy of mankind and the enemy of the Afghan people and the enemy of the coalition forces in Afghanistan. That is the problem. That is the dilemma which we all face and which this amendment seeks to address. Again, it does so in a way which doesn't prejudge the outcome of the assessment, but it makes a very important point, which is, as is now stated in the amended final paragraph, that we need recommendations given this ``on the one hand they are with us, on the other hand they are against us'' situation. We need recommendations from the administration, if any, relating to potential alternatives to or termination of reimbursements for the coalition support fund, the Government of Pakistan, taking into account the transition plan for Afghanistan. I agree with my friend from Arizona that we send condolences to the families of troops in Pakistan who have recently lost their lives. We also have to understand that Pakistan has paid a huge price for terrorism in their country against their people. They have paid a massive price. But what is unacceptable to us is that they are making us pay a price by providing a safe haven for the Haqqanis and for the Quetta Shura. Our troops, our families, coalition troops, coalition families, Afghan troops, and Afghan families are paying a heavy price because of the Pakistan support through their ISI for the insurgency in Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it very succinctly. He said the Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the Pakistan intelligence service. When he was pressed on that formulation, he said he meant every word of it. So we have to send an important message to Pakistan, and the message is that we want a normal relationship if we can have one, but we cannot have a normal relationship if you are, on the one hand, supporting the very people who are attacking us in Afghanistan and, on the other hand, purporting to help us through the protection of supplies going through Pakistan, helping us succeed in Afghanistan. We cannot have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways. This amendment sends a very significant and important message, I believe, to the Pakistanis and to our coalition allies and to our Afghan partners that what is going on inside Pakistan has to come to an end. I believe this will help bring that important result about. So I very much support the amendment of Mr. Corker, the Senator from Tennessee, and hope we can adopt it. If there is no further debate about it--there may be others who do want to debate, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Cantwell will want to be recognized. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Not only does 1031, the overall section, not change the law, it incorporates it, according to the administration's own statement of policy on what the current law is. The Senator is right. There is nothing in here which in any way affects habeas corpus, nor should we seek to do so. Habeas corpus remains exactly as it is. We could not change it if we wanted to, and we don't want to. While the Senator asked me a question, I wish to answer a question with a question to him. Is it not true that for the first time, we provide that where there is going to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent who could be held in long-term detention under the law of war--for the first time we provide a judge and a lawyer to that person; is that right?

Mr. LEVIN. I read this yesterday, and I will read it again now. The Senator is right. I don't know how anybody reading this can reach any other conclusion but what the Supreme Court says, not because they are right or wrong but because of the Supreme Court: ``There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.'' By the way, nor should there be, in my judgment.

Mr. LEVIN. They have, and they have been treated as enemy combatants.

Mr. LEVIN. I agree.

Mr. LEVIN. It is good policy. If they decline, under the procedures under our language, the person should be first interrogated for whatever length of time those procedures provide--by the FBI, local police or anybody else. They have the right to do that.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want one quick moment to respond and then I will propound a unanimous consent request. We couldn't change the Constitution here if we wanted to, and nobody does want to. And that includes the right of habeas corpus. All the constitutional rights which the Senator from Illinois talked about are constitutional rights. They are there. They are guaranteed. They couldn't be changed by the Congress if we wanted to, and I hope nobody wants to change those rights. But what the Senator ignores, and what has been ignored generally here, is that there is another path, and the Supreme Court has approved this path so that if any American citizen joins a foreign army in attacking us, that person may be treated as an enemy combatant. That is not me speaking. That is the Supreme Court in Hamdi. There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. If you join an army and attack us, you can be treated as an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court has said so more than once. My unanimous consent request is the following: that the Senator from California be recognized first for whatever comments she wishes to make, then the senior Senator from Illinois be recognized to speak on whatever subject he wishes--on the amendment of the Senator from California or whatever--and then Senator Merkley's amendment be in order to be called up by Senator Merkley.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question. Would the Senator agree that the majority opinion in Hamdi said the following: There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator agree that specifically referred to there is that a citizen being held as an enemy combatant is--excuse me. Would the Senator agree that what he read refers to the exact statement of the Justice that a citizen who is held as an enemy combatant is entitled to certain rights? Would the Senator agree that that, by its own terms, says that a citizen can be held as an enemy combatant?

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator agree that the Justice said the following, that a citizen, no less than an alien, can be ``part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners'' and ``engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,'' and would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict? Would the Senator agree that she said that?

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator agree that she quoted from the Quirin case, in which an American citizen was captured on Long Island?

Mr. LEVIN. Did she cite that with approval?

Mr. LEVIN. I understand.

Mr. LEVIN. My question, though--my question is: Did Justice O'Connor say that, in Quirin, that one of the detainees alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen, we held that--these are her exact words: Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of war. Did she say that?

Mr. LEVIN. She is quoting with approval from the Quirin case in which one of the detainees was----

Mr. LEVIN. I understand Senator Merkley was going to be recognized next to offer his amendment. That was according to the unanimous consent agreement. I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, I don't know for how long, needed to make a unanimous consent request. Am I correct? No? I am incorrect. According to the existing unanimous consent agreement, which was entered into----

Mr. LEVIN. I believe it is now in order for Senator Merkley to offer amendment No. 1257, as amended, with the amendment at the desk. The amendment at the desk has four words added to the printed amendment, and those words are ``NATO and coalition allies''; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.