[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 13095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court ruled in the case 
of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress did not intend to strip Federal 
courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas corpus cases when it passed 
the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The Court got it right.
  The original amendment offered by Senator Graham on the Senate floor, 
and which passed the Senate by a vote of 49 to 42, contained language 
that would have stripped the Federal courts of habeas corpus 
jurisdiction in both pending and future cases brought by detainees at 
Guantanamo. The amendment specifically stated that the jurisdiction-
stripping provision ``shall apply to any application or other action 
that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.''
  However, this language was removed from the provision by the 
subsequently adopted Graham-Levin amendment. The Graham-Levin amendment 
passed the Senate by a vote of 84 to 14, and replaced the earlier 
Graham amendment in the bill. The legislative history makes clear that 
the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not apply to pending habeas 
corpus cases.
  The day before the Senate adopted the Graham-Levin modification, I 
said on the Senate floor: ``The amendment will not strip the courts of 
jurisdiction over [pending] cases. For instance, the Supreme Court 
jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected.'' Despite efforts by the House 
of Representatives during our conference with the House to reinsert 
language stripping the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas 
corpus cases, the final text of the Detainee Treatment Act retained the 
language of the Graham-Levin amendment.
  In today's decision, the Supreme Court, applying ``ordinary 
principles of statutory construction,'' determined that Congress did 
not intend to strip the courts of jurisdiction in pending habeas cases. 
The Court held that ``Congress' rejection of the very language that 
would have achieved the result the Government urges here weighs heavily 
against the Government's'' argument that the jurisdiction-stripping 
language should be interpreted to be retroactive. That was, indeed, the 
only conclusion that is supported by the language and legislative 
history of the Detainee Treatment Act.
  The substance of the ruling in Hamdan establishes that the President, 
acting alone, lacks the power to unilaterally determine the legal 
rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Only Congress and the 
President, acting together, have the power to make such a 
determination, the Court ruled. Today's decision demonstrates once 
again the vital constitutional role of the Supreme Court as a check on 
the actions of the executive and legislative branches of Government.
  I believe that Congress should give this issue careful deliberation, 
including full committee hearings, before we act. I look forward to 
thorough hearings in the Armed Services Committee this summer in 
anticipation of consideration of possible legislation in the fall.

                          ____________________