In the particular case of Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina. What the Senator concluded with, though, I think is critical to this conversation. He said the only way to get to the bottom of whether there is an al-Qaida connection that could threaten the…

Well, what is the difference, then, with what the Senator is standing for and what is the current situation? From my point of view, our Presidents--President Bush and President Obama--since 9/11, have used both, with more success on the…

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so…

So the Senator is arguing that every President should have all the options, criminal courts as well as military commissions and tribunals?

I want to reclaim the floor. I know Senator McCain is anxious for me to conclude and there is something he is anxious to do quickly, but I will try to do this in appropriate time for the gravity of the issue before us. But to suggest the…

I would respond by saying Justice O'Connor in that decision said: [A]s critical as the Government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing…

It is a clear signal to the international community that we are very serious about drying up the financial capacity of Iran.

I cannot think of any issue that is concentrating the minds of the administration more than this right now or at any other time.

We have seen over and over again that without the United States stepping forward, the international community is slow.

I want to just underscore what Senator Corker said.

We are facing a global economic challenge. The United States is in stronger position than many other countries.

I think it belies the reality of politics in Congress.

Congress should pass a law that says no money gets spent unless it gets specifically voted out every year.

The Constitution of the United States is the foundation upon which our great Nation has been built.

So, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, why would we? Why would we put that in the Constitution?

There's a provision in here that was topical a few months ago.

That program will not survive for the next generation of seniors.

These outcomes would only be more extreme if a constitutional amendment required spending to be capped at a lower percentage.

And the question is whether words in the Constitution will allow us the flexibility to accommodate that.

Tell me why you think our Constitution should protect, by requiring a higher vote to reduce it, this tax expenditure, this tax credit for child care for wealthy people but not protect the appropriation needed to provide child care for…

The elimination of the mortgage interest deduction will result in higher taxes on my family.

Our social safety net is broken.

It is ironic that the strongest supporters of a balanced budget amendment also proclaim their love for, and fidelity to, the Constitution.

Look at the current recession. The current recession, with 14 million people out of work, not paying taxes and needing Unemployment as well as food stamps and other things, is a classic example where we need the stabilizers, do we not?