Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I understand the President made another speech today, and the speeches he has been giving lately are clever political documents. It is pretty clear his focus has shifted from governing to campaigning, with about a year from now until election day. But our Nation is in a serious financial condition. Our debt is larger than we like to acknowledge it is. Our European friends on the other side of the Atlantic are wrestling with their debt problems, and many of those nations--most of those nations--have debt less than we do as a percentage of GDP. We know, from every expert we have heard testify before the Budget Committee, on which I serve as ranking member, that we must change our path. We are on an unsustainable path, and we cannot continue on it. Time after time we have had hearings and have heard from experts telling us we have to alter our debt trajectory. We have to get on a sound path. Perhaps it will be a tougher path for a few years, a harder road, but it is the right road, and the road that will lead to soundness in our economy. Prosperity and growth is what we need. The debt commission President Obama appointed, headed by Mr. Erskine Bowles and Senator Alan Simpson, told us we are on a path to the most predictable financial crisis the Nation has ever been on. They were saying that the unsustainable trajectory of the this country's debt will lead us to some sort of economic catastrophe. It will knock us back into a recession, put us back to where we were in 2007 or 2008, or like what Europe is facing right now. They pleaded with us to do something about it. The debt commission laid out a plan. I don't agree with everything in the plan, but it said, at a minimum--and there was bipartisan agreement on this--the debt should be reduced. The added debt we incur over the next 10 years should be reduced by at least $4 trillion. They said we should reduce the growth of our debt by at least $4 trillion. So in the last two meetings in the Budget Control Act, it looks as if we achieved about $2.1 trillion, not $4 trillion, but they all said we needed more than that, because the increase in our debt over the next 10 years would be about $8 trillion to $10 trillion. That is the increase on top of the $15 trillion we have already incurred. This past fiscal year, which ended on September 30, we will have added $1.23 trillion to our debt; the year before that, $1.3 trillion, the year before that, $1.2 trillion--the only three times in history we have had deficits over $1 trillion. It is a very serious situation. So we have a speech. I just have to say, we tried to look at the speech to see what it is that the President has proposed. He is our leader, our Commander in Chief. We only have one Chief Executive, one Governor, one mayor. I see Senator Manchin here. He was a Governor. He had to manage the State and exercise leadership. So what is it this Executive, our President, is proposing that we do? Well, it is pretty clear. It appears that he is proposing that we spend next year $324 billion more than we planned to spend. He calls it a tax cut or maintaining a tax cut. In truth, it is a holiday from paying into our Social Security pension that all Americans pay into as they work. It is a holiday from that. Well, where does the money come from? We have a trust fund, Social Security, that we pay into, and we have a promised benefit when we retire. We want to honor that and make sure the Social Security trust fund is able to honor that. How do we not pay into it without hurting or damaging the Social Security trust fund? They say: Well, don't worry. We will put the money in. Who is ``we''? Well, ``we'' is the United States Treasury. The United States Treasury will put the money in. But the Treasury is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to run a $1 trillion deficit this year, a little bit better than the $1.23 trillion deficit that we ran last year. So we are running a $1 trillion deficit. We don't have any money in the Treasury to pay to Social Security. So how do we honor the Social Security trust fund? How do we put the money in? Well, we give bonds. Just an IOU. The United States Treasury, as easy as pie, signs a document, an IOU, gives it to Social Security, and says: You are made whole. Don't worry; no problem. What? Me worry? We have it under control. Where does this come from? Social Security is on a trajectory that is going to call this debt. The trustees are going to need this money to pay our beneficiaries, and they are going to call the debt to the United States Treasury and the United States Treasury is going to have to pay it, in my opinion, unless we totally abandon our responsibility to the seniors in America. I don't think we will. So we are going to pay that money, and it is added to the debt. This year, under the President's plan, beginning in January, he will add $324 billion in debt. What the Bowles-Simpson Commission was all about was laying out a plan to reduce our debt, not increase the debt. The first thing we have to do to confront a surging debt in America is to quit digging the hole deeper, quit asserting new programs to spend larger and larger amounts of money. It would also add $155 billion the second year. So it would total $479 billion over the first two years. So they say: Well, we have the Treasury figured out. We will have a tax increase. We will raise taxes, and over 10 years that will pay for the $479 billion that is added to our debt right now. There will be enough money coming in--don't worry--over 10 years from this new tax. Well, I will just say a couple things about that. If we are going to raise taxes, what the bipartisan Debt Commission told us was, use it to pay down debt. Don't use it to fund a new spending program of $479 billion. If we are going to cut spending somewhere in the program to save money, let's begin to reduce our debt. Don't just cut spending so we can create a new spending program. We have to watch what we are doing. I don't believe it has been thought through carefully where we are headed, and I don't see anything in this speech today that will lay out a 2-year, 5-year, 10-year plan for making America a stronger and better place. But, we are told, the President cares about the middle class; and if we question any of these schemes, then we don't care about working Americans. I reject that. That is offensive to me. I totally believe that I represent the cross-section of people in my State and America. I love and respect the working people of this country, and they are entitled to better. They are entitled to leadership that tells them the truth. The truth is that we are endangering their future and their children's future by allowing the most incredible debt increases that the Nation has ever seen, and that has to be brought under control. It is offensive to suggest that if someone has a different view about how to create jobs and wealth in America, they don't care about the people who make America great, people who go to work every day, people who send their children to defend this country and pay their taxes and obey the law and do things right and support those who are in trouble and need help. I would propose this, more specifically--and I think the Republican plan touches these very issues in an effective way that would, in fact, increase and enhance job creation and economic growth in America. First, we need policies that reduce the cost of energy for Americans. We have an Energy Department and an Interior Department that seem to believe their goal in life should be to drive up the cost of energy: to make coal and natural gas harder to produce, make oil more hard to produce, make us have to buy it from abroad when we could produce more at home, creating jobs in this country, creating wealth in this country, creating taxpayers in this country. We need more American energy. We need more energy at lower prices. The idea that somehow we are going to be better off because of carbon or other issues to have higher energy prices so we use less of it is totally unjustified, and it is creating an incredible burden on working Americans. We need to end the health care proposal that is clearly driving up health care costs. It is causing businesses not to hire. I have talked to small businesses in my State. They assure me with absolute confidence that the health care bill that will be taking effect, and is beginning to take effect, will cause them to hire fewer people. We need more people hired. We need more people working. We need to eliminate unnecessary, counterproductive governmental regulations that drive up the costs of our products, making them less competitive in the world marketplace. We need to do that. It will not cost the Treasury any money, but it will make America more productive and create jobs. I supported and worked with my Democratic colleagues, and we passed in this Senate--but the President didn't support it--legislation to demand that China treat its currency in a fair way to eliminate the currency manipulation they have been participating in and to eliminate the unfair hammering, savaging of American industry that is occurring in this country as a result of unfair trade. That is very real. It has to end, and the President needs to be leading on that. It would create jobs in our country without adding to our debt. Finally, the greatest threat to our economic growth and to our job creation in America is the debt itself. It is the cloud over our economy. We have to do more about it. There is one more thing I would mention; that is, tax simplification and tax alteration. Not to necessarily get less taxes but to create the tax revenue that the government takes in in a way that does not damage the economy. Create a tax simplification plan that would encourage economic growth and prosperity and not pull down economic growth and prosperity. So once we have done those things, we begin to focus on reducing our surging debt. If we do it steadfastly, like Governors all over America--Governor Bentley in Alabama is having to face challenges and is making tough decisions. But the State is still operating. It hasn't sunk into the ocean. Neither has New Jersey. Neither have other States. Even New York and others are beginning to confront their debt situation and make tough choices. We are not doing it here. Our President is proposing more spending-- not just this $324 billion plan for this year, he is proposing to spend 10 percent more on the Education Department next year, 10 percent more on the Department of ``anti-Energy,'' 10 percent more for the State Department at a time when the country is in its most severe debt crisis in its history. That is not responsible. This debt is a threat to us. If we talk to the financial experts and the wizards who move money around the world, they are worried about it. If we talk to government experts such as the Secretary of the Treasury or the Federal Reserve Chairman or the head of the Congressional Budget Office, they tell us what we are doing is dangerous, that we are on an unsustainable path. I do not see in this speech today any commitment, any leadership from the President on this fundamental issue. The most fundamental failure of his leadership is not to look the American people in the eye and to tell them honestly and truthfully that we are spending too much. Back in Marion, AL, I was at a town meeting at somebody's house with 30 or 40 people there. The oldest gentleman there spoke last. He had fought in World War II. He grew up during the Depression. He told us, in his view, it was not the high cost of living that was getting us in trouble but the cost of living too high. I do believe we have been living too high, and we have been spending too much. The President--our leader--should be talking directly and honestly to us and laying out a 2-year, 5-year, 10-year plan that will bring this deficit down. He should be explaining to the American people why we are all going to have to tighten our belts; why there is nothing--defense or anything else--that is going to avoid having to tighten its belt. We can do this and put our country on a sound path without having a debt crisis that would be a tragedy of monumental proportions. Madam President, I just wanted to share those thoughts today. This Congress is going to have to do more than tread water for the next year. We are going to have to do more than just play clever political games. We are going to have to deal with the threat we face directly and honestly. The proposal I see that was floated again today from the White House may sound good politically. But for me, as one who has been looking at the numbers, it does one thing: it increases the debt over the 2 years by $479 billion. That means probably this year's deficit will not be $1 trillion but probably $1.35 trillion--1,350 billion dollars--this year's deficit. We are promised that there will be a tax increase that, after 10 years, will somehow pay for this. That is the kind of thinking and action that has allowed this country to get out of control financially, and I hope we can do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to address amendment 1274, which would clarify what I believe is existing law that the President has authority to continue to detain an enemy combatant under the law of war, following a trial before a military commission or an article III court, and regardless of the outcome of that trial. Let me explain what I mean. As I said yesterday, even under the law of war the President has the authority to detain an enemy combatant, a prisoner of war, a captured enemy soldier, a belligerent. The President can detain him through the duration of the hostilities. The President is not required--the Commander in Chief is not required to release an individual whose sworn duty it is to return to his military outfit and commence hostilities again against the United States. That individual could be killed on the battlefield, but if captured, you are not required, under all laws of war that I am aware of and certainly the Geneva Conventions--you can maintain that individual in custody to prevent him from attacking you. But you can also try an individual who has been captured if that individual violated the rules of war. For example, a decent soldier from Germany--many of them were held in my State of Alabama. They behaved well. They made paintings of American citizens, they did a lot of things, and did not cause a lot of trouble. They were in uniform and they complied with the rules of war and they were not tried as illegal enemy combatants. But many of the terrorists today do not wear uniforms, deliberately target innocent men, women, and children, and deliberately violate multiple rules of war. Those individuals are subject, in addition to being held as a combatant, as an unlawful combatant. They can be prosecuted and they should be prosecuted. In World War II a group of Nazi saboteurs in the Ex parte Quirin case were let out of a submarine off, I think, of Long Island. They came into the country with plans to sabotage the United States. They were captured and tried by military commissions. Several were American citizens. A number of them--most of them, frankly--after being tried and convicted, were executed. The Supreme Court of the United States approved that procedure. But recent cases demonstrate the potential problem we have today. One Guantanamo Bay detainee has already raised the question I have discussed before the military commission where he is being tried. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, was arraigned before a military commission on November 9. He was held not only as an al-Qaida, or a belligerent against the United States, but he was charged with a violation of the rules of war. This was a group that sneaked into the harbor pretending to be innocent people and ran their boat against the Cole, killing a number of U.S. sailors. I remember being at a christening of one of the Navy ships at Norfolk not long after this. I walked out of that area and I heard one of the sailors cry out: Remember the Cole. The hair still stands up on my neck when I hear it. We have an obligation to defend our men and women in uniform. When they are out on the high sea or they are in a neutral port, they expect to be treated according to the laws of war and then they are murdered by an individual such as this. This individual's lawyers filed a motion asking the military judge to clarify the effect of an acquittal, should the commission acquit him. He argued that the members of the committee had a right to know what would happen if he were acquitted because they might object to taking part in what he called a show trial if it turned out that he would continue to be detained at Guantanamo Bay. There is another case in which the administration was almost confronted with the problem a year ago, in the case of a former Guantanamo detainee, an al-Qaida member named Ahmed Ghailani, who was responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Most of us remember those early al-Qaida bombings against our embassies in Africa. After the Justice Department chose to prosecute Ghailani in an article III civilian court and directed the United States Attorney not to seek the death penalty--I am not sure why that ever happened; we don't know--but the jury acquitted him on 284 out of 285 counts. Luckily, he received a life sentence on the single count of conspiracy, for which he was convicted. But what if he had not been convicted? What if there was insufficient evidence to prove he committed a crime, but not insufficient evidence to prove he was a combatant against the United States? Al-Qaida has declared war against the United States, officially and openly. The U.S. Congress has authorized the use of military force against al-Qaida, which is the equivalent of a declaration of war. What if he had received a modest sentence after being convicted and had credit for time served? What if he had been acquitted on all 285 counts? Would the President have been required to release him into the United States, if the government could not get some country to take him? That would be wrong. He was at war against the United States. He was a combatant against the United States. Like any other captured combatant, he can be held as long as the hostilities continue. By the way, let me note, military commissions are open. If they decide to try one of these individuals--not just hold him as a prisoner of war but hold him and try him for violation of the laws of war--they get lawyers, they get procedural rights. The Supreme Court has established what those rights are. Congress has passed laws effectuating what the Supreme Court said these trials should consist of, and a mechanism has been set up to fairly try them. But enemy combatants are not common criminals. If a bank robber is denied bail, he remains in jail awaiting a trial, a speedy public trial, with government-paid lawyers. Enemy combatants are not sitting in Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial by a military commission, or by an article III court. They are held in military custody precisely because they are enemies, combatants against the United States. They should continue to be held there as long as the war continues and as long as they do not remain a threat to return to the battlefield against the United States. This is an important point, considering that 27 percent of the former Guantanamo detainees who have been released--161 out of 600--have returned to the battlefield, attacked Americans. This Nation has no obligation to release captured enemy prisoners of war when we know for an absolute fact that 27 percent of them have returned to war against the United States. How many others have but we do not have proof of it? That is what the whole history of warfare is. Lincoln ceased exchanging prisoners with the South after he realized they had more soldiers in the South. It was not to his advantage to release captured southern soldiers who would return to the fighting, so he held them until the war was over. Under the laws of war, the President has the authority to prevent an enemy combatant from returning to the battlefield. That is consistent with all history. This amendment--please, Senators, I hope you would note--would make it clear that the President simply has authority to continue to detain enemy combatants held pursuant to the rules of war, even though they may have been tried, regardless of where that trial would be held and what the outcome was, as long as, of course, they could prove they were an enemy combatant and violating the rules of war. I would note one thing. I see my friend, the Senator from California, is here and probably is ready to speak. On the question of citizenship, can a citizen be held in this fashion? The Supreme Court has clearly held they may. But the Senator is offering legislation that might change that. My amendment does not answer that question. It simply says a combatant should be able to be held under the standard of a prisoner of war, a combatant, even if they had been prosecuted for violation of the laws of war and acquitted. It is common sense. I believe the courts will hold that, but it is an issue that is out there. I think Congress would do well to settle it today. I urge my colleagues to do so. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, our country is facing a very serious financial crisis. We have seen what happened in Europe. We had some numbers on the stock market for a while. But if I understand what happened, there was a very real crisis facing the Europeans, and at the very last moment they took some action that was received positively. But they are not out of the woods yet and neither are we. Our debt is surging. We have gone from 5 years ago a $161 billion deficit to a $450 billion deficit in President Bush's last year to $1.2 trillion in President Obama's first year, $1.3 trillion in President Obama's second year, $1.2 trillion this year, and over $1 trillion predicted in deficits next year. We are going to have a proposal that comes before us to provide a payroll holiday, and it is sold as avoiding a tax increase. That is what the President says it is; we are avoiding a tax increase. So we ought to ask ourselves exactly how that is so and if it is so. Let me just say, I don't think that is accurate. Two years ago, there was an employer payroll tax holiday that went only to the employer. It cost the Treasury $7.6 billion. Last year, as part of the final compromise, a bipartisan compromise, it was agreed that there would be a 2-percent tax holiday for working persons. So instead of paying 6-plus percent on your withholding tax, you would pay 4. That cost $111 billion for that year. So the President said: If we don't extend that, we are going to have a tax increase. But is he accurate? No, not really. This year's proposal would be to reduce not the 4 percent but the 3.1 percent, cutting the 6.2 withholding to 3.1 for the employer and for the employee, and it would cost in 1 year $265 billion--$265 billion that would not be going into the Social Security trust fund so that those who retire would have the retirement funds they have been promised. It would not go there. It weakens Social Security, the integrity of the system, in my opinion. But we are told not to worry, the U.S. Treasury will replace this $265 billion with Treasury money. But the problem is, the Treasury doesn't have any money. The Treasury is already in debt. The Treasury is going to add another $1 trillion to the deficit this year. So now it is going to be added to--$265 billion more in one fell swoop, in one bill, right here at the end of the session. If you don't vote for it, the President says, you are raising taxes on the American people. That is not an accurate statement. In an economic sense, in my opinion, the real essence of this is the U.S. Treasury will borrow $265 billion. Then, it will direct the Social Security Administration to send that money out in the form of a reduced withholding amount to be paid by workers. It is a direct borrow and it is a direct delivery of money and it uses Social Security trust fund moneys as a vehicle to transfer the money. In an economic sense, it borrows $265 billion to spend. How much is $265 billion? The supercommittee, the committee of 12, was trying to find $1,200 billion in savings over 10 years--not 1 year, 10 years. This one bill, this one proposal of $265 billion would be spent this 1 year. To achieve the committee of 12's goal, they would simply have needed to have cut $120 billion a year for 10 years out of the entire Federal Government. They failed. Immediately now, the President and our majority leader are demanding this Congress pass an expenditure-- unexpected, not before done; nothing like such a large expenditure ever has come out of Social Security--to spend another $265 billion. How will we ever get our house in order? I wish I could figure out a way to be supportive. I don't see how I can be. I am pleased the Republicans are trying to work up a bill that would not cost as much as $265 billion and some way to pay for it. But, in truth, if we are going to be able to cut spending to pay for any kind of new expenditure, wouldn't we be better to do what the committee of 12 tried to do: cut spending to reduce the debt? Shouldn't we be seeking ways, if we are going to raise taxes, to use those taxes to pay down the debt, instead of taking 10 years under the President's plan in a new tax that takes 10 years of that tax to pay for this 1 year's expenditure? That is what the proposal is. I would say to my colleagues, this goes beyond partisan politics. This gets to the point: Are we in control of the Treasury and the spending of the United States of America? Can we defend what we are doing? Don't think that is the only thing that is going to come up. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. We look at these numbers. This also will be taken care of in December, count on it: We are going to deal with the alternative minimum tax. That is going to cost $50 billion. We are going to deal with unemployment insurance, an additional $70 billion to extend those payments beyond 90-some-odd weeks. We are going to fix the doctors payment, because we have to. We can't cut the doctors that much, $21 billion. We are going to extend most, if not all, of the tax extenders we call them, $90 billion. The total is $500 billion. Some of this we have been expecting to take care of. But we weren't expecting or planning in any way to have a continuation of the payroll holiday that is going to cost $265 billion. I just would say to my colleagues, when are we going to think more rationally about it? I just heard: How are we going to pay for the AMT, unemployment insurance, doctors payments, and the tax extenders? Somebody said: We are going to count the savings from the war. The Congressional Budget Office will show a decline in expenses for the Iraq and Afghanistan war will be a savings. We can spend that. That is fraudulent, that is a gimmick, and it should not be acceptable. Everybody knows the war costs are going to be coming down and we have been planning for that. We can't assume that money is available to spend willy-nilly. We were bringing the war costs down to bring the debt down, not to fund new spending. We need to bring the war costs down to try to reduce our debt and our deficit, not to fund new spending. But that is how they are going to do this, I have been told. I am not surprised because there is no other way they are going to do it. I just would share that. We will be voting in a little bit on this issue. I don't know what the answer is. I don't know how to fix our problems, but I know one thing. We remain in denial. Our country is in greater debt crisis than we realize. Mr. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson of President Obama's debt commission say we are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation's history as a result of our debt, and we need to get serious about how to fix it. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I join with Senator McCain in support of Senator Cornyn's amendment. Taiwan has been a strong ally of the United States. Senator McCain said we would provide them military aircraft, but, in truth, they would buy it. They are our allies. They are friends. They are prepared to purchase from an American company legitimate military equipment that they could use to help maintain the freedom they have cherished on the island, and it is hard for me to understand how that would be objected to. I just wish to say, as someone who has looked at these issues for some time as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I do believe Senator Cornyn--also a member of that committee--is correct, and I strongly support the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it, if and when we can get a vote. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment is crafted to simply clarify and affirm what appears to be the law, and logic tells us should be the law today. If an individual is apprehended as a prisoner of war, they are detained under the laws of war until the conflict ends. But if, after being detained or when they are detained, it is determined they have committed crimes against the laws of war, they can be tried for those crimes. There is a slight ambiguity. I think it is pretty clear the military would have a right to continue to detain them as a prisoner of war if they were not convicted of the much higher burden crime against the laws of war. So the essence of this is simply to say what the judge said in the case involving the African Embassy bombing, the Ghailani case. The guy was acquitted of 284 out of 285 counts, and the judge said: You probably would be detained under the laws of war. So this would clarify that.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask that I be notified after 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that clarifies--although that is not exactly the right word--the fact that an unlawful combatant or a combatant who is held by the U.S. military for being an enemy of the United States, a combatant against the United States, or an unlawful combatant, is not therefore entitled to be released if the U.S. military or the civilian courts choose to prosecute him and he is acquitted or after he serves his sentence but before hostilities have ended. These are entirely different matters. There are two questions: Are you an enemy combatant of the United States? These are the kinds of prisoners of war in World War II, Germans, for example, who were kept in Aliceville, AL. They stayed in a prisoner-of-war camp until the war was over, and they went home. They didn't violate the rules of war; they weren't prosecuted for any crimes. They simply were not released so that they could go and rejoin the battle in an attempt to kill more American service men and women. But they were lawful. They wore uniforms, they complied with the rules of war, and they were not able to be prosecuted. But when a person sneaks into the country with an intent to murder women and children and innocent noncombatants, does not wear a uniform, and violates other provisions of the rules of war, then they can be not only held as a combatant but they can be held and tried for commission of crimes against the United States. That is the classic standard of the law of war. I believe it is clear that if a person is captured and tried for a crime and, let's say, acquitted--whether in a civilian court or a military commission--they are not entitled to be released. To that end, I would quote a number of statements to that effect. But I believe the legal system would be a lot better off if we spoke clearly on that matter today so there is no doubt whatsoever. President Obama, on May 21, 2009, said this: But even when [the prosecution] process is complete, there may be a number of people who could not be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. In other words, they remain prisoners of war who are likely to join the enemy if they are released. He goes on to say: These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. I think that is consistent with all rules of war, and I think the President was right in that statement. Attorney General Eric Holder, in November of 2009, before the Judiciary Committee, said: I personally think that we should involve Congress in [ensuring that the Executive Branch has the authority to make that decision], that we should interact with . . . this committee in crafting a law of war detention process or program. In other words, he was calling on us to work with them in developing statutes. But, historically, I think the law is clear at any rate. Jeh Johnson, General Counsel to the Department of Defense, who came from the New York Times as general counsel for the New York Times--not a career Department of Justice defense attorney--said this before the Senate Armed Services Committee: The question of what happens if there's an acquittal is an interesting question . . . I think that as a matter of legal authority, if you have the authority under the laws of war to detain someone, and the Hamdi decision said that in 2004, that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side . . . as a matter of legal authority, I think we have law-of-war authority, pursuant to the authority Congress granted us with AUMF, as the Supreme Court interpreted it, to hold that person provided they continue to be a security threat, and we have the authority in the first place. So, again, he is saying if they are not convicted, they can still be held if they continue to be a threat. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on ``Meet the Press'' November of last year: MR. GREGORY: But my question is, are we committed with these terror suspects that if they are acquitted in civilian courts, they should be released? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no. . . . Senator Jack Reed, our West Point graduate and a member of the Armed Services Committee--I am proud to serve with my Democratic colleague-- this is what he said the November before last: There are no guarantees [of conviction], but under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will. . . . I do not believe they will be released . . . under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities. I believe this is legislation that would do nothing more but, importantly, will affirm the classical understanding of our laws of war, and as a result, the people who are charged can be tried, and if they are not convicted of a crime, they can still be detained. I would note that an individual American soldier or German soldier or Japanese soldier who is lawful and released has a duty to report back to their military unit and commence hostilities until the war is over. Senator Graham is here, a current JAG officer in the U.S. Air Force who has studied these matters very closely and has been engaged in this debate so eloquently. I am delighted to have him here and to have his support on this amendment. Perhaps he has some comments?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. It is up to the detaining authority whether they believe a person has committed a crime.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. I asked to be informed at 10. I see Senator Sanders is here.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is a very important purpose of that.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely not. It focuses on punishment for a crime already committed, normally.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. In fact, we specifically tell people arrested that they have a right not to provide any intelligence, and it indicates it is clearly not the primary function.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. I certainly believe it is.