[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9917-S9927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ENSIGN:
S. 1869. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require
new voting systems to provide a voter-verified permanent record, to
develop better accessible voting machines for individuals with
disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in the November 2004 elections, Nevadans
entered a new frontier for casting their votes. We became the first
State in the Nation to require that voter-verified paper audit trail
printers be used with touch-screen voting machines.
Despite what critics of these machines might tell you, Nevada's
elections were a success. The machines worked well and were well-
received by voters. During a post-election audit, Nevada compared
60,000 electronic ballots with their corresponding voter-verified paper
record and found that they matched with 100 percent consistency. As a
result, all Nevadans who used these machines can be confident that
their votes were counted accurately.
I understand better than most the importance of the integrity of the
ballot box. I was at the mercy of a paperless-machine election in my
1998 race for the U.S. Senate. When the votes were tallied with a
difference of only a few hundred, I asked for a recount in Clark
County, the only county at the time using electronic voting machines.
The result of the recount was identical to the first count. That is
because there was nothing to recount. After rerunning a computer
program, the computer predictably produced the same exact tally.
I conceded that race and was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in
2000. But that experience made me realize the importance of ensuring
Americans that their votes will count, it is absolutely fundamental to
our democracy.
That is why I led the fight for voter verification paper trails in
the Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, which President Bush signed
into law in 2002. When Congress passed HAVA, we expressed our
commitment to the principle of ``one person, one vote.'' One important
component of HAVA provided States with funds to replace aging voting
machines which had a tendency to malfunction. A voting machine that
fails to record a vote properly affects voters in the same way as
[[Page S9918]]
if the voters were denied access to the voting booth. Either way their
vote is not counted.
Despite these gains, HAVA falls short in one critical area. It does
not require that electronic voting machines produce a paper trail of
each ballot. A voter-verified paper trail would allow voters to review
a physical printout of their ballot and correct any errors before
leaving the voting booth. This printout would be preserved at the
polling place for use in any recounts. This is exactly what Nevadans
experienced when they voted in November.
This technology is important.
It increases voter confidence. With the close elections America has
seen recently, it is important that each American trust the outcome of
our elections. Machines that allow voters to review a separate paper
record of their ballots give voters confidence that their votes have
been cast and will be counted accurately.
Paper-trail technology ensures that no votes will be lost if a voting
machine fails. The paper record can be used as the ballot of record if
a machine malfunctions and fails to record the votes that were cast
prior to a machine failing. This technology also gives State election
officials a necessary backup to verify results. Nevada's post-election
audit ensures that each machine operated properly. This type of audit
guarantees accuracy in a way that cannot be guaranteed otherwise.
Unfortunately, the language that is contained in HAVA has not
resolved this issue for most other States. Now, I am working to ensure
voting integrity across the country. In introducing the Voting
Integrity and Verification Act, I want to ensure that HAVA is clear--
voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be
counted properly. My bill requires that all voting systems purchased
after December 31, 2012 have an individual permanent paper record for
each ballot cast.
Additionally, this bill will help to advance technology for persons
with disabilities to ensure that disabled voters enjoy the same
independence when exercising their right to vote as non-disabled voters
enjoy.
Technology has transformed the way we do many things, including
voting. But we cannot simply sit on the sidelines and assume that our
democracy will withstand such changes. Our continued work to ensure
that each vote counts here in the U.S. underscores the idea that we
must always be vigilant in protecting democracy, whether it is brand
new or more than 200 years old. The Voting Integrity and Verification
Act protects democracy by protecting the sanctity of our vote.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Whitehouse, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Brown, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1870. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United
States; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court
decisions, today I am introducing legislation to affirm Federal
jurisdiction over the waters of the U.S. as Congress intended when it
passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. I want to thank Senators
Lautenberg, Levin, Kerry, Lieberman, Boxer, Menendez, Sanders, Cardin,
Durbin, Reed, Dodd, Kohl, Whitehouse, Stabenow, Carper, Wyden, Leahy,
Brown, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this important
legislation.
For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water
Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The
primary goal of the act, to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and
coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation,
suitable for our drinking water supply, and available for wildlife and
fish habitat, has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor
but also as a fundamental expectation of government providing for its
citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater
resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy,
and help the environment.
We have made considerable progress towards ensuring the Nation's
waters are drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. However, today, the
Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, faces
new and unprecedented challenges.
Two controversial, closely divided U.S. Supreme Court rulings have
reduced the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act, undermining
decades of clean water protections and disregarding Congress' intent
when it originally passed the Clean Water Act.
At the heart of the issue is the statutory definition of ``waters of
the United States.'' Though recent court decisions have focused on
dredge and fill permits under section 404, this definition is integral
to the Federal Government's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act as a
whole. This definition is the linchpin for state water quality
standards under section 302 and section 303, national performance
standards under section 306, toxic and pretreatment standards under
section 307, oil and hazardous substance liability under section 311,
aquaculture standards under section 318, State water quality
certifications under section 401, and national pollution discharge
permitting requirements under section 402.
In the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army
Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court limited the authority of Federal agencies to extend Clean Water
Act protections to commercially nonnavigable, intrastate, ``isolated''
waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. While the Court's
decision was narrow, the effect of the decision has been much broader:
for example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 20
percent of the Nation's wetlands outside Alaska are now at risk of
losing Federal protections.
Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a sharply divided
decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers that jeopardizes many more of our
Nation's waters. Four justices joined an opinion that said only
permanent or ``continuously flowing'' rivers and streams and by
implication, the wetlands next to them are protected by the Clean Water
Act, ignoring the act's text and purpose. This line of reasoning would
leave more than half of our Nation's waters without Federal
protections. To put these bodies of water into perspective, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency, 110 million Americans get their
drinking water from sources that include the very intermittent and
ephemeral bodies of water that the four justices said were not
protected by the Clean Water Act.
Fortunately, five Justices rejected this radical rewrite of the act.
However, Justice Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote to send the cases
back to the lower courts, offered an entirely different test; one
requiring EPA and the corps to show a ``significant nexus'' between a
stream, river, or wetland and a navigable water in order for the
stream, river, or wetland to be protected. At best, this test is
confusing, will be resource-intensive to implement, and is likely to
result in many waters Congress always included under the Clean Water
Act being left unprotected from pollution.
Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and
national officials, professional organizations, and public interest
groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined
in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of
interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the
District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and
Carol Browner; 9 current and former members of the U.S. Senate and U.S.
House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage of
the 1972 act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State
Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies;
numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation
organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the
[[Page S9919]]
National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American
Sportsfishing Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the
Wildlife Management Institute, among others; and a number of local,
regional, and national environmental groups. All of these interests
filed briefs in the most recent Supreme Court case, expressing strong
support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the requirement to
obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into waters of the U.S.
With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded
in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that my
colleagues will join me in reaffirming Federal protections for streams,
headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that have long been covered by
the act.
The issue before us is simple: Does Congress support restoring
historic clean water protections as they existed for nearly 30 years
prior to the Supreme Court cases? If so, Congress must act. In 1972,
Congress established protections for all ``waters of the United
States'' and I am pleased to lead the charge in the Senate to reaffirm
those protections.
The Clean Water Restoration Act would reestablish protection for all
waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act, prior to the SWANCC
and Rapanos decisions. The bill could not be more straight-forward. It
makes it clear that the Clean Water Act has always covered a myriad of
interstate and intrastate waters, by codifying the regulatory
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been in use
since the 1970s. In fact, 30 years ago this month, the Environmental
Protection Agency finalized the act's regulations, properly
establishing the scope of waters needing to be protected by the Clean
Water Act in order to meet the national objective. The Clean Water
Restoration Act would codify the regulations the federal agencies have
used to enforce the Clean Water Act for over 30 years. This is
necessary to prevent the judicial branch from re-defining ``navigable
waters'' as something other than the ``waters of the United States.''
The bill's ``findings'' make it clear that Congress' primary concern
in 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution rather than
just sustain the navigability of waterways, and it reinforces that
original intent. It also asserts Congress' constitutional authority,
which extends beyond the Commerce Clause to the Property Clause, Treaty
Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to protect the Nation's
waters.
While the Clean Water Restoration Act is critical to preventing the
courts from rewriting the law and thus further reducing the protections
afforded to our Nation's waters under the Clean Water Act, the bill is
remarkably simple and does not do many things.
The bill does not prohibit development or other activities that
discharge pollutants into waters. Complying with the Clean Water Act
requires following a process that seeks to evaluate proposed activities
and minimize impacts by ensuring certain pollution standards or
environmental criteria are met. The vast majority of permit requests
are granted, and most are granted through expedited ``general'' permits
rather than individual permits that require site-specific
determinations.
The bill does not change the existing permitting process. Rather, the
bill will provide much-needed clarity. The Supreme Court decisions have
caused a lot of confusion, and the Corps of Engineers nationally has
around 20,000 jurisdictional determinations pending. The regulated
community, as well as state and federal agencies, will once again have
a clear understanding that Clean Water Act protections extend to the
same waters covered by the act for over thirty years.
The bill does not change the EPA and Corps' existing regulations or
any aspect of the regulatory programs, in fact, as stated above, the
bill defines waters of the U.S. based on the regulations that have been
in place since the early 1970s.
The bill does not change the activities that are regulated. This
means it does not change or overrule current exemptions related to
farming, forestry, ranching, and infrastructure maintenance that have
been in place since 1977. Activities such as plowing, seeding,
cultivating, and harvesting; and constructing and maintaining farm or
stock ponds, irrigation ditches, and farm or forest roads have been
exempted from permitting requirements and will remain so under this
bill.
The bill does not create duplicative State and Federal permitting
processes. The Clean Water Act created an important Federal-State
partnership, and States can choose to assume from the Corps the dredge
and fill permitting program, Section 404, or the EPA's NPDES permitting
program for point sources, Section 402.
The bill does not preempt state and local authority under the Clean
Water Act. However, without the bill many State programs are in
jeopardy because many States developed their own clean water laws so
that they hinge entirely on the Federal Clean Water Act, and do not
have separate state programs to fully address any voids left by the
removal of Federal clean water protections. Also, some states prohibit
their state laws from being any more protective than the Federal law.
This means that if the Federal Clean Water Act's protections are
curtailed, then the State's protections are also reduced.
Statements that this bill would ``expand the scope of the Clean Water
Act'' are disingenuous at best. For over 30 years, all ``waters of the
United States'' have been regulated and Congress should not stand by
while the courts and certain special interests roll back the critical
protections afforded by the Clean Water Act.
Congress must provide the needed leadership to clarify the intent of
the Clean Water Act. Such action must ensure that all waters of the
U.S., waters that are valuable for drinking, fishing, swimming, and a
host of other economically vital uses, not just navigability, remain
protected. After decades of progress, now is not the time to turn back
the clock. I hope my colleagues will join me in reaffirming an
important clean water pledge to the America people.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1870
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water Restoration Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the
United States.
(2) To clearly define the waters of the United States that
are subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'').
(3) To provide protection to the waters of the United
States to the fullest extent of the legislative authority of
Congress under the Constitution.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Water is a unique and precious resource that is
necessary to sustain human life and the life of animals and
plants.
(2) Water is used not only for human, animal, and plant
consumption, but is also important for agriculture,
transportation, flood control, energy production, recreation,
fishing and shellfishing, and municipal and commercial uses.
(3) Through prior enactments, Congress established the
national objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the
United States and recognized that achieving this objective
requires uniform, minimum national water quality and aquatic
ecosystem protection standards to restore and maintain the
natural structures and functions of the aquatic ecosystems of
the United States. Since the 1970s, the definitions of
``waters of the United States'' in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
regulations have properly established the scope of waters
needed to be protected by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) in order to meet the national
objective.
(4) Water is transported through interconnected hydrologic
cycles, and the pollution, impairment, or destruction of any
part of an aquatic system may affect the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of other parts of the aquatic
system.
(5) Protection of intrastate waters is necessary to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of all waters in the United States.
(6) The regulation of discharges of pollutants into
intrastate waters is an integral part of the comprehensive
clean water regulatory program of the United States.
[[Page S9920]]
(7) Small and intermittent streams, including ephemeral and
seasonal streams, comprise the majority of all stream miles
in the United States and serve critical biological and
hydrological functions that affect entire watersheds. These
waters reduce the introduction of pollutants to large streams
and rivers, provide and purify drinking water supplies, and
are especially important to the life cycles of aquatic
organisms and the flow of higher order streams during floods.
(8) The pollution or other degradation of waters of the
United States, individually and in the aggregate, has a
substantial relation to and effect on interstate commerce.
(9) Protection of intrastate waters is necessary to prevent
significant harm to interstate commerce and sustain a robust
system of interstate commerce in the future.
(10) Waters, including streams and wetlands, provide
protection from flooding. Draining or filling intrastate
wetlands and channelizing or filling intrastate streams can
cause or exacerbate flooding that causes billions of dollars
of damages annually, placing a significant burden on
interstate commerce.
(11) Millions of people in the United States depend on
streams, wetlands, and other waters of the United States to
filter water and recharge surface and subsurface drinking
water supplies, protect human health, and create economic
opportunity. Source water protection areas containing small
or intermittent streams provide water to public drinking
water supplies serving more than 110 million Americans.
(12) Millions of people in the United States enjoy
recreational activities that depend on intrastate waters,
such as waterfowl hunting, bird watching, fishing, and
photography, and those activities and associated travel
generate hundreds of billions of dollars of income each year
for the travel, tourism, recreation, and sporting sectors of
the economy of the United States.
(13) Activities that result in the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States are commercial or economic
in nature. More than 14,000 facilities with individual
permits issued in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including industrial
plants and municipal sewage treatment systems, discharge into
small or intermittent streams.
(14) States have the responsibility and right to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution of waters, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act respects the rights and
responsibilities of States by preserving for States the
ability to manage permitting, grant, and research programs to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to establish
standards and programs more protective of a State's waters
than is provided under Federal standards and programs.
(15) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities
affecting the waters of the United States is a necessary and
proper means of implementing treaties to which the United
States is a party, including treaties protecting species of
fish, birds, and wildlife.
(16) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities
affecting the waters of the United States is a necessary and
proper means of protecting Federal land, including hundreds
of millions of acres of parkland, refuge land, and other land
under Federal ownership and the wide array of waters
encompassed by that land.
(17) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities
affecting the waters of the United States is necessary to
protect Federal land and waters from discharges of pollutants
and other forms of degradation.
SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (7);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (24) as
paragraphs (7) through (23), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Waters of the united states.--The term `waters of
the United States' means all waters subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate
and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the
foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or
activities affecting these waters, are subject to the
legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.''.
SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking ``navigable waters of the United States''
each place it appears and inserting ``waters of the United
States'';
(2) in section 304(l)(1) by striking ``navigable waters''
in the heading and inserting ``waters of the united states'';
and
(3) by striking ``navigable waters'' each place it appears
and inserting ``waters of the United States''.
SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the
authority of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Secretary of the Army under the
following provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.):
(1) Section 402(l)(1), relating to discharges composed
entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture.
(2) Section 402(l)(2), relating to discharges of stormwater
runoff from certain oil, gas, and mining operations composed
entirely of flows from precipitation runoff conveyances,
which are not contaminated by or in contact with specified
materials.
(3) Section 404(f)(1)(A), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture, and
ranching activities.
(4) Section 404(f)(1)(B), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials for the purpose of maintenance of currently
serviceable structures.
(5) Section 404(f)(1)(C), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials for the purpose of construction or
maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and
maintenance of drainage ditches.
(6) Section 404(f)(1)(D), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials for the purpose of construction of
temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites, which
do not include placement of fill material into the waters of
the United States.
(7) Section 404(f)(1)(E), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials for the purpose of construction or
maintenance of farm roads or forest roads or temporary roads
for moving mining equipment in accordance with best
management practices.
(8) Section 404(f)(1)(F), relating to discharges of dredged
or fill materials resulting from activities with respect to
which a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4)
of such Act meeting the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of that section.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Warner, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1871. A bill to provide for special transfers of funds to States
to promote certain improvements in State unemployment compensation
laws; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Warner, and Cantwell in introducing the
Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, a bipartisan proposal to
reform our unemployment insurance system.
In today's troubled economy, too many working families are just one
pink slip away from falling into poverty. The most recent recession hit
workers particularly hard, wiping out millions of good jobs, many of
which never came back. Today, almost 7 million Americans are
unemployed.
Fundamental shifts in the economy, including globalization and jobs
being shipped overseas have caused declines in entire industries, with
the result that large numbers are losing their long-time jobs and
struggling to find new opportunities for work. But their options for
new jobs are limited, and nearly one in six unemployed Americans are
out of work for longer than 6 months. Another 1.5 million unemployed
workers aren't even counted in the official unemployment statistics,
because they have become frustrated and have given up their job search.
The Federal Unemployment Insurance program was created in the
Depression-era to help keep workers out of poverty between jobs. It has
been a bedrock of security for working families in difficult times,
providing much needed benefits to millions of workers each year. It has
helped them pay the rent and put food on the table when they lose their
job and face long periods of unemployment. It also has helped reduce
economic fluctuations by building up a reserve of funds in good
economic times that can be used as a cushion to soften the blow of job
losses during recessions.
The problem is that the current unemployment insurance system has not
kept pace with the changing economy and left millions of Americans
without benefits. In 2006, just 35 percent of unemployed Americans
received unemployment benefits. In addition, today's much more mobile
workforce means that employees are now at greater risk of suffering
unemployment.
These problems particularly affect low-wage workers. According to the
Government Accountability Office, low-wage workers are only half as
likely to receive UI benefits as other unemployed workers, even though
low-wage workers are twice as likely to be unemployed.
Modernizing unemployment insurance cannot single-handedly overcome
all of the economic challenges facing our Nation, but it's a critical
step in dealing with the hardships so many working families are facing.
The current unemployment insurance program was designed as a
partnership between states and the Federal
[[Page S9921]]
Government. States are given extraordinary flexibility to tailor the
program's benefits to their unique situations, and many of them have
been the laboratories of democracy in improving their unemployment
insurance systems. Their experiments have often been successful in
making the system more responsive to workers' needs.
Some have improved coverage for low-wage and part-time workers.
Others have made their systems more family-friendly, or have helped
dislocated workers expand their skills through training.
Our Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act builds on these
successes by offering States strong financial incentives to adopt the
best of the new programs.
First, the bill encourages States to cover more low-wage workers. In
30 states, many unemployed low-wage workers are not eligible for UI
benefits because their most recent earnings are not counted. But
failure to count these earnings may deny benefits altogether to some
workers, and reduces the amount that many other workers receive. Our
bill provides incentives for States to fix this unfair practice.
Changing family life has also left many workers unable to collect
unemployment benefits. Today, two-wage earner families are the norm,
not the exception. When a parent moves to a different city to take a
new job, the spouse usually has to quit work as well to keep their
family together. But spouses cannot collect unemployment benefits in
most States, nor can victims of domestic violence, if they have to
leave work to find safety elsewhere, out of reach of their abuser. Our
legislation encourages States to provide benefits in these cases as
well.
In addition to expanding the eligibility for benefits, our bill also
supports state efforts to reemploy workers laid off by declining
industries. Currently, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program offers
retraining benefits to some workers directly affected by trade, so that
they can learn new skills and find worthwhile jobs in other industries.
But employees who are only indirectly affected by trade often receive
no benefits. Our bill helps close that gap by encouraging States to
offer additional benefits to unemployed workers attending State-
approved training programs.
Finally, our legislation provides needed funds to States to manage
their unemployment insurance programs and reach out to workers. Many
States are now forced to shut their unemployment offices because they
can't afford to keep them open, leaving unemployed workers without any
counseling to find new work or learn about the benefits available to
them. These employment offices also provide a way for other programs,
such as Trade Adjustment Assistance, to reach out to affected workers.
The Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act will provide greater
security to countless working families who are being left in the cold
today. It will help long-term unemployed workers get the training they
need to find new jobs. It will give States the resources and
flexibility they need to revitalize their programs and serve working
families more effectively.
I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are joining to
introduce this important legislation. We all agree that now is the time
for these reforms. In the global economy, it is more urgent than ever
for every American worker to be able to contribute to the economy. To
achieve that goal, we need to make sure that all unemployed workers
have the support they need to get back on their feet and rejoin the
workforce. Our future prosperity depends on it.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Brown):
S. 1872. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 to make revenue counter-cyclical payments available to
producers on a farm to ensure that the producers at least receive a
minimum level of revenue from the production of a covered commodity,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1872
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Farm Safety Net Improvement
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REVENUE COUNTER-CYCLICAL PROGRAM.
Section 1104 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7914) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1104. REVENUE COUNTER-CYCLICAL PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--For each of the 2008 through 2012 crop
years for each covered commodity, the Secretary shall make
revenue counter-cyclical payments available to producers on a
farm in a State for a crop year for a covered commodity if--
``(1) the actual State revenue from the crop year for the
covered commodity in the State determined under subsection
(b); is less than
``(2) the revenue counter-cyclical program guarantee for
the crop year for the covered commodity in the State
determined under subsection (c).
``(b) Actual State Revenue.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1), the
amount of the actual State revenue for a crop year of a
covered commodity shall equal the product obtained by
multiplying--
``(A) the actual State yield for each planted acre for the
crop year for the covered commodity determined under
paragraph (2); and
``(B) the revenue counter-cyclical program harvest price
for the crop year for the covered commodity determined under
paragraph (3).
``(2) Actual state yield.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)
and subsection (c)(1)(A), the actual State yield for each
planted acre for a crop year for a covered commodity in a
State shall equal--
``(A) the quantity of the covered commodity that is
produced in the State, and reported to the Secretary, during
the crop year; divided by
``(B) the number of acres that are planted or considered
planted to the covered commodity in the State, and reported
to the Secretary, during the crop year.
``(3) Revenue counter-cyclical program harvest price.--For
purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the revenue counter-cyclical
program harvest price for a crop year for a covered commodity
shall equal the harvest price that is used to calculate
revenue under revenue coverage plans that are offered for the
crop year for the covered commodity under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
``(c) Revenue Counter-Cyclical Program Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--The revenue counter-cyclical program
guarantee for a crop year for a covered commodity in a State
shall equal 90 percent of the product obtained by
multiplying--
``(A) the expected State yield for each planted acre for
the crop year for the covered commodity in a State determined
under paragraph (2); and
``(B) the revenue counter-cyclical program pre-planting
price for the crop year for the covered commodity determined
under paragraph (3).
``(2) Expected state yield.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A),
subject to subparagraph (B), the expected State yield for
each planted acre for a crop year for a covered commodity in
a State shall equal the projected yield for the crop year for
the covered commodity in the State, based on a linear
regression trend of the yield per acre planted to the covered
commodity in the State during the 1980 through 2006 period
using National Agricultural Statistics Service data.
``(B) Assigned yield.--If the Secretary cannot establish
the expected State yield for each planted acre for a crop
year for a covered commodity in a State in accordance with
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall assign an expected
State yield for each planted acre for the crop year for the
covered commodity in the State on the basis of expected State
yields for planted acres for the crop year for the covered
commodity in similar States.
``(3) Revenue counter-cyclical program pre-planting
price.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B),
subject to subparagraph (B), the revenue counter-cyclical
program pre-planting price for a crop year for a covered
commodity shall equal the average price that is used to
determine crop insurance guarantees for the crop year for the
covered commodity under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) during the crop year and the preceding 2
crop years.
``(B) Minimum and maximum price.--The revenue counter-
cyclical program pre-planting price for a crop year for a
covered commodity under subparagraph (A) shall not decrease
or increase more than 15 percent from the pre-planting price
for the preceding year.
``(d) Payment Amount.--If revenue counter-cyclical payments
are required to be paid for any of the 2008 through 2012 crop
years of a covered commodity, the amount of the revenue
counter-cyclical payment to be paid to the producers on the
farm for the crop year under this section shall be equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--
``(1) the difference between--
``(A) the revenue counter-cyclical program guarantee for
the crop year for the covered
[[Page S9922]]
commodity in the State determined under subsection (c); and
``(B) the actual State revenue from the crop year for the
covered commodity in the State determined under subsection
(b);
``(2) the acreage planted or considered planted to the
covered commodity for harvest on the farm in the crop year;
``(3) the quotient obtained by dividing--
``(A) the actual production history on the farm; by
``(B) the expected State yield for the crop year, as
determined under subsection (c)(2); and
``(4) 90 percent.
``(e) Recourse Loans.--For each of the 2008 through 2012
crops of a covered commodity, the Secretary shall make
available to producers on a farm recourse loans, as
determined by the Secretary, on any production of the covered
commodity.''.
SEC. 3. IMPACT ON CROP INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Rating.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency shall
carry out a study to identify such actions as are necessary
to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all
policies and plans of insurance under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) are properly rated to
take into account a rebalancing of risk as a result of the
enactment of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out the
actions identified under paragraph (1).
(b) Prevention of Duplication.--The Administrator of the
Risk Management Agency and Administrator of the Farm Service
Agency shall work together to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that producers on a farm are not compensated
through the revenue counter-cyclical program established
under section 1104 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (as amended by section 2) and under the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for the same loss,
including by reducing crop insurance indemnity payments by
the amount of the revenue counter-cyclical payments.
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 166(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7286(a)) is amended by
striking ``B and''.
(b) Section 1001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7901) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (3), (6), (8), and (15);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (7), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), and (16) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5),
(6), (7), (8), (9), (11), (12), and (13), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and counter-cyclical payments'';
(4) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) In general.--'';
and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B);
(5) by inserting after paragraph (9) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(10) Revenue counter-cyclical payments.--The term
`revenue counter-cyclical payments' means a payment made to
producers on a farm under section 1104.''.
(c) The subtitle heading of subtitle A of title I of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
prec. 7911) is amended by inserting ``Revenue'' before
``Counter-Cyclical''.
(d) Section 1101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911) is amended by striking ``and
counter-cyclical payments'' each place it appears in
subsections (a)(1) and (e)(2).
(e) Section 1102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7912) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and counter-cyclical
payments''; and
(2) by striking subsection (e).
(f) Section 1103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913) is amended by striking ``2007''
each place it appears and inserting ``2012''.
(g) Section 1105 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7915) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``REVENUE'' before
``COUNTER-CYCLICAL''; and
(2) by inserting ``revenue'' before ``counter-cyclical''
each place it appears.
(h) Subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) is repealed.
(i) Subtitles C through F of title I of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7951 et seq.) are
amended by striking ``2007'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2012''.
(j) Section 1307(a)(6) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7957)(a)(6)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2011''.
(k) Section 1601(d)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7991(d)(1)) is amended by
striking ``and counter-cyclical payments under subtitle A and
subtitle C'' and inserting ``under subtitle A''.
(l) Section 1605 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7993) is repealed.
(m) Section 1615(2) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7998(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Loan'' and inserting
``Covered''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``loan'' and inserting
``covered''.
(n) Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``revenue'' before
``counter-cyclical''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1); and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``(2) Other commodities.--'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, wool, mohair, or
honey under subtitle B or'' and inserting ``under subtitle'';
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, peanuts, wool,
mohair, and honey under those subtitles'' and inserting
``under that subtitle''; and
(iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and indenting
appropriately.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 1876. A bill to prohibit extraterritorial detention and rendition,
except under limited circumstances, to modify the definition of
``unlawful enemy combatant'' for purposes of military commissions, to
extend statutory habeas corpus to detainees, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. One of the defining challenges of our age is to
effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our
national values and our commitment to the rule of law, and respecting
individual rights and civil liberties. To fight terrorist organizations
whose tactics include blending into our cities and communities and
attacking civilian populations engaged in the activities of everyday
life, we must have robust and agile intelligence capabilities.
Rendition, detaining a terrorist operative in one foreign country and
transfering him to the United States or to another foreign country to
face justice, has proved to be one effective means of taking terrorists
off the streets and collecting valuable intelligence.
Despite its effectiveness, however, the U.S. Government's use of
rendition has been controversial. Foreign governments have criticized
the practice as ungoverned by law and on the basis of its alleged use
to transfer suspects to countries that torture or mistreat them or to
secret, extraterritorial prisons. The toll the rendition program, as
currently practiced, has had on relationships with some of our closest
foreign partners is evident from their responses.
Italy has indicted 26 Americans for their alleged role in a
rendition. Germany has issued arrest warrants for an additional 13 U.S.
intelligence officers. A Canadian Government commission has censured
the United States for rendering a Canadian/Syrian dual citizen to
Syria. The Council of Europe and the European Union have each issued
reports critical of the U.S. Government's rendition program and
European countries' involvement or complicity in it. Sweden and
Switzerland have each initiated investigations as well. Today, the
United Kingdom issued a report predicting that the U.S. Government's
rendition program would have ``serious implications'' for the
intelligence relation between the U.S. and U.K., one of our most
important foreign partners. Rendition, as currently practiced, is
undermining our moral credibility and standing abroad and weakening the
coalitions with foreign governments that we need to effectively combat
international terrorism.
The controversial aspects of the U.S. Government's use of rendition
have also not escaped the notice of the propagandists and recruiters
who fuel and sustain international terrorist organizations with a
constant stream of new recruits. Allegations of lawlessness and
mistreatment by the U.S. make their job easier, adding a refrain to
their recruitment pitch and increasing the receptivity of their target
audience.
Our counterterrorism authorities should not only thwart attacks, take
dangerous terrorists off the streets, and bring them to justice; these
authorities should also strengthen international coalitions, draw
Muslim populations around the world closer to us, and deprive
terrorists of a recruitment narrative. In our long term effort to stem
the tide of international terrorism, our commitments to the rule of law
and to individual rights and civil liberties are among our most
formidable weapons. They are what unite foreign governments behind us
in effective counterterrorism coalitions. They
[[Page S9923]]
are what unite public opinion in support of our counterterrorism
efforts and in condemnation of the terrorists and their tactics. They
are what prevent the recruitment of the next generation of
international terrorists.
This bill maintains rendition as a robust and agile tool in our fight
against international terrorism, but it brings that tool within the
rule of law, provides additional safeguards against error, and
prohibits rendering individuals to countries that will torture or
mistreat them or to secret, extra-territorial prisons.
The bill establishes a classified application and order process,
presided over by the FISA court that: 1. ensures that each rendition is
preceded by a searching inquiry into the identity of the individual to
be rendered and his role in international terrorism and 2. prohibits
rendition to countries that torture or mistreat detainees or to secret,
extraterritorial prisons beyond the reach of law. It ensures that
citizens of, and individuals lawfully admitted to, the U.S. receive the
due process and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It
ensures that a terrorist suspect detained by the U.S. has the
opportunity, through a writ of habeas corpus, to argue in a court of
law that he is being held in error.
This bill also closes a hole intentionally left open by the
President's recent Executive Order on the treatment of detainees. The
President's order is notably silent on some of the more controversial
techniques the CIA has allegedly used in the past, such as
waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, extreme sensory deprivation,
and extremes of heat and cold. When we countenance this treatment of
detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques
should not be used against our own troops.
We cannot continue to equivocate and dissemble on this matter. We
need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading
treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S.
law. Period. Therefore, my bill prohibits all officers and agents of
the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized
by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation.
As I said at the outset, this bill grapples with one of the defining
issues of our age, how to effectively combat terrorism without
sacrificing our national values and abandoning the rule of law. If we
continue to pursue a rendition program ungoverned by law, without
sufficient safeguards and oversight, we will perpetuate a short term
solution that exacerbates the long term problem. We will take
individual terrorists off the streets at the expense of the foreign
coalitions that are essential to our efforts to combat international
terrorism, at the expense of facilitating the recruitment of a new
generation of terrorists who are just as dangerous and far more
numerous.
This is not a trade-off we have to make. We can have a robust and
agile rendition capability governed by the rule of law and subject to
sufficient safeguards and oversight. That is what the National Security
with Justice Act creates. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle and in the other branches of Government to work with me to refine
this legal framework so that we not only take today's terrorists off
the streets, we strengthen our standing and credibility among foreign
governments and the global community, and we prevent tomorrow's
terrorists from being recruited.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1876
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Security with
Justice Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``aggrieved person''--
(A) means any individual subject by an officer or agent of
the United States either to extraterritorial detention or
rendition, except as authorized in this Act; and
(B) does not include any individual who is an international
terrorist;
(2) the term ``element of the intelligence community''
means an element of the intelligence community specified in
or designated under section 3(4) of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4));
(3) the term ``extraterritorial detention'' means detention
of any individual by an officer or agent of the United States
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) the term ``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court''
means the court established under section 103(a) of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1803(a));
(5) the term ``Geneva Conventions'' means--
(A) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at
Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(B) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed
Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(C) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(D) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST
3516);
(6) the term ``international terrorist'' means--
(A) any person, other than a United States person, who
engages in international terrorism or activities in
preparation therefor; and
(B) any person who knowingly aids or abets any person in
the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A) or
knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities
described in subparagraph (A);
(7) the terms ``international terrorism'' and ``United
States person'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);
(8) the term ``officer or agent of the United States''
includes any officer, employee, agent, contractor, or
subcontractor acting for or on behalf of the United States;
and
(9) the terms ``render'' and ``rendition'', relating to an
individual, mean that an officer or agent of the United
States transfers that individual from the legal jurisdiction
of the United States or a foreign country to a different
legal jurisdiction (including the legal jurisdiction of the
United States or a foreign country) without authorization by
treaty or by the courts of either such jurisdiction, except
under an order of rendition issued under section 104.
SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Table of contents.
TITLE I--EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION AND RENDITION
Sec. 101. Prohibition on extraterritorial detention.
Sec. 102. Prohibition on rendition.
Sec. 103. Application for an order of rendition.
Sec. 104. Issuance of an order of rendition.
Sec. 105. Authorizations and orders for emergency detention.
Sec. 106. Uniform Standards for the Interrogation of Individuals
Detained by the Government of the United States.
Sec. 107. Protection of United States Government Personnel Engaged in
an Interrogation.
Sec. 108. Monitoring and reporting regarding the treatment, conditions
of confinement, and status of legal proceedings of
individuals rendered to foreign governments.
Sec. 109. Report to Congress.
Sec. 110. Civil liability.
Sec. 111. Additional resources for foreign intelligence surveillance
court.
Sec. 112. Rule of construction.
Sec. 113. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--ENEMY COMBATANTS
Sec. 201. Modification of definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant''
for purposes of military commissions.
TITLE III--HABEAS CORPUS
Sec. 301. Extending statutory habeas corpus to detainees.
TITLE I--EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION AND RENDITION
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
officer or agent of the United States shall engage in the
extraterritorial detention of any individual.
(b) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to--
(1) an individual detained and timely transferred to a
foreign legal jurisdiction or the legal jurisdiction of the
United States under an order of rendition issued under
section 104 or an emergency authorization under section 105;
(2) an individual--
(A) detained by the Armed Forces of the United States in
accordance with United States Army Regulation 190-8 (1997),
or any successor regulation certified by the Secretary of
Defense; and
(B) detained by the Armed Forces of the United States--
(i) under circumstances governed by, and in accordance
with, the Geneva Conventions;
(ii) in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1546 (2004) and
[[Page S9924]]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723 (2004);
(iii) at the Bagram, Afghanistan detention facility; or
(iv) at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center on the
date of enactment of this Act;
(3) an individual detained by the Armed Forces of the
United States under circumstances governed by, and in
accordance with chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code
(the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
(4) an individual detained by the Armed Forces of the
United States subject to an agreement with a foreign
government and in accordance with the relevant laws of that
foreign country when the Armed Forces of the United States
are providing assistance to that foreign government; or
(5) an individual detained pursuant to a peacekeeping
operation authorized by the United Nations Security Council
acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations.
SEC. 102. PROHIBITION ON RENDITION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
officer or agent of the United States shall render or
participate in the rendition of any individual.
(b) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to--
(1) an individual rendered under an order of rendition
issued under section 104;
(2) an individual detained and transferred by the Armed
Forces of the United States under circumstances governed by,
and in accordance with, the Geneva Conventions;
(3) an individual--
(A) for whom an attorney for the United States or for any
State has filed a criminal indictment, criminal information,
or any similar criminal charging document in any district
court of the United States or criminal court of any State;
and
(B) who is timely transferred to the United States for
trial;
(4) an individual--
(A) who was convicted of a crime in any State or Federal
court;
(B) who--
(i) escaped from custody prior to the expiration of the
sentence imposed; or
(ii) violated the terms of parole, probation, or supervised
release; and
(C) who is promptly returned to the United States--
(i) to complete the term of imprisonment; or
(ii) for trial for escaping imprisonment or violating the
terms of parole or supervised release; or
(5) an individual detained by the United States at the
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center on the date of
enactment of this Act who is transferred to a foreign legal
jurisdiction.
SEC. 103. APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF RENDITION.
(a) In General.--A Federal officer or agent may make an
application for an order of rendition in writing, upon oath
or affirmation, to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, if the Attorney General of the United
States or the Deputy Attorney General of the United States
determines that the requirements under this title for such an
application have been satisfied.
(b) Contents.--Each application under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) the identity of the Federal officer or agent making the
application;
(2) a certification that the Attorney General of the United
States or the Deputy Attorney General of the United States
has approved the application;
(3) the identity of the specific individual to be rendered;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon
by the applicant to justify the good faith belief of the
applicant that--
(A) the individual to be rendered is an international
terrorist;
(B) the country to which the individual is to be rendered
will not subject the individual to torture or cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment, within the meaning of the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on
December 10, 1984;
(C) the country to which the individual is to be rendered
will timely initiate legal proceedings against that
individual that comport with fundamental notions of due
process; and
(D) rendition of that individual is important to the
national security of the United States; and
(5) a full and complete statement regarding--
(A) whether ordinary legal procedures for the transfer of
custody of the individual to be rendered have been tried and
failed; or
(B) the facts and circumstances that justify the good faith
belief of the applicant that ordinary legal procedures
reasonably appear to be--
(i) unlikely to succeed if tried; or
(ii) unlikely to adequately protect intelligence sources or
methods.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 103 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1803) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) The court established under subsection (a) may hear
an application for and issue, and the court established under
subsection (b) may review the issuing or denial of, an order
of rendition under section 104 of the National Security with
Justice Act of 2007.''.
SEC. 104. ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF RENDITION.
(a) In General.--Upon filing of an application under
section 103, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as
modified approving the rendition, if the judge finds that--
(1) the Attorney General of the United States or the Deputy
Attorney General of the United States has approved the
application for rendition;
(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer or
agent;
(3) the application establishes probable cause to believe
that the individual to be rendered is an international
terrorist;
(4) ordinary legal procedures for transfer of custody of
the individual have been tried and failed or reasonably
appear to be unlikely to succeed for any of the reasons
described in section 103(b)(5)(B);
(5) the application, and such other information as is
available to the judge, including reports of the Department
of State and the United Nations Committee Against Torture and
information concerning the specific characteristics and
circumstances of the individual, establish a substantial
likelihood that the country to which the individual is to be
rendered will not subject the individual to torture or to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, within the meaning of
the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at
New York on December 10, 1984;
(6) the application, and such other information as is
available to the judge, establish reason to believe that the
country to which the individual is to be rendered will timely
initiate legal proceedings against that individual that
comport with fundamental notions of due process; and
(7) the application establishes reason to believe that
rendition of the individual to be rendered is important to
the national security of the United States.
(b) Appeal.--The Government may appeal the denial of an
application for an order under subsection (a) to the court of
review established under section 103(b) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(b)),
and further proceedings with respect to that application
shall be conducted in a manner consistent with that section
103(b).
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATIONS AND ORDERS FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, and subject to subsection (b), the President or
the Director of National Intelligence may authorize the Armed
Forces of the United States or an element of the intelligence
community, acting within the scope of existing authority, to
detain an international terrorist in a foreign jurisdiction
if the President or the Director of National Intelligence
reasonably determines that--
(1) failure to detain that individual will result in a risk
of imminent death or imminent serious bodily injury to any
individual or imminent damage to or destruction of any United
States facility; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order of rendition
under paragraphs (3) and (7) of section 104(a) exists.
(b) Notice and Application.--The President or the Director
of National Intelligence may authorize an individual be
detained under subsection (a) if--
(1) the President or the Director of National Intelligence,
or the designee of the President or the Director of National
Intelligence, at the time of such authorization, immediately
notifies the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the
President or the Director of National Intelligence has
determined to authorize that an individual be detained under
subsection (a); and
(2) an application in accordance with this title is made to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as
practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the President
or the Director of National Intelligence authorizes that
individual to be detained.
(c) Emergency Rendition Prohibited.--The President or the
Director of National Intelligence may not authorize the
rendition to a foreign jurisdiction of, and the Armed Forces
of the United States or an element of the intelligence
community may not render to a foreign jurisdiction, an
individual detained under this section, unless an order under
section 104 authorizing the rendition of that individual has
been obtained.
(d) Nondelegation.--Except as provided in this section, the
authority and duties of the President or the Director of
National Intelligence under this section may not be
delegated.
SEC. 106. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF
INDIVIDUALS DETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the
effective control of an officer or agent of the United States
or detained in a facility operated by or on behalf of the
Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, or
any other agency of the Government of the United States shall
be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
authorized by and listed in United States Army Field Manual
2-22.3, entitled ``Human Intelligence Collector Operations''.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to any individual in
[[Page S9925]]
the custody or under the effective control of the Government
of the United States based on--
(1) an arrest or conviction for violating Federal criminal
law; or
(2) an alleged or adjudicated violation of the immigration
laws of the United States.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to diminish the rights under the Constitution of the United
States of any individual in the custody or within the
physical jurisdiction of the Government of the United States.
SEC. 107. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL
ENGAGED IN AN INTERROGATION.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel.--In a
civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer or
agent of the United States relating to an interrogation, it
shall be a defense that such officer or agent of the United
States complied with section 106.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution relating
to the interrogation of an individual in the custody or under
the effective control of the Government of the United States
based on--
(1) an arrest or conviction for violating Federal criminal
law; or
(2) an alleged or adjudicated violation of the immigration
laws of the United States.
(c) Provision of Counsel.--In any civil action or criminal
prosecution arising from the alleged use of an authorized
interrogation practice by an officer or agent of the United
States, the Government of the United States may provide or
employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and
other expenses incident to representation.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed--
(1) to limit or extinguish any defense or protection from
suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages otherwise
available to a person or entity; or
(2) to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal
offense by the proper authorities.
SEC. 108. MONITORING AND REPORTING REGARDING THE TREATMENT,
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT, AND STATUS OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS OF INDIVIDUALS RENDERED TO FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) regularly monitor the treatment of, the conditions of
confinement of, and the progress of legal proceedings against
an individual rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under
section 104; and
(2) not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, submit to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report detailing the treatment of, the
conditions of confinement of, and the progress of legal
proceedings against any individual rendered to a foreign
legal jurisdiction under section 104.
(b) Applicability.--The Secretary of State shall include in
the reports required under subsection (a)(2) information
relating to the treatment of, the conditions of confinement
of, and the progress of legal proceedings against an
individual rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under
section 104 during the period beginning on the date that
individual was rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under
section 104 and ending on the date that individual is
released from custody by that foreign legal jurisdiction.
SEC. 109. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
The Attorney General shall--
(1) submit to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of
the House of Representatives an annual report that contains--
(A) the total number of applications made for an order of
rendition under section 104;
(B) the total number of such orders granted, modified, or
denied;
(C) the total number of emergency authorizations issued
under section 105; and
(D) such other information as requested by the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) make available to the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives a copy of each
application made and order issued under this title.
SEC. 110. CIVIL LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--An aggrieved person shall have a cause of
action against the head of the department or agency that
subjected that aggrieved person to extraterritorial detention
or a rendition in violation of this title and shall be
entitled to recover--
(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of
$1,000 for each day of the violation;
(2) punitive damages; and
(3) reasonable attorney's fees.
(b) Jurisdiction.--The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have original jurisdiction over
any claim under this section.
SEC. 111. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT.
(a) Authority for Additional Judges.--Section 103(a) of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1803(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by inserting ``at
least'' before ``seven of the United States judicial
circuits'';
(3) by striking ``If any judge so designated'' and
inserting the following:
``(3) If any judge so designated''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as so designated, the
following:
``(2) In addition to the judges designated under paragraph
(1), the Chief Justice of the United States may designate as
judges of the court established by paragraph (1) such judges
appointed under article III of the Constitution of the United
States as the Chief Justice determines appropriate in order
to provide for the prompt and timely consideration of
applications under sections 103 of the National Security with
Justice Act of 2007 for orders of rendition under section 104
of that Act. Any judge designated under this paragraph shall
be designated publicly.''.
(b) Additional Legal and Other Personnel for Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court.--There is authorized for the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court such additional staff
personnel as may be necessary to facilitate the prompt
processing and consideration by that Court of applications
under section 103 for orders of rendition under section 104
approving rendition of an international terrorist. The
personnel authorized by this section are in addition to any
other personnel authorized by law.
SEC. 112. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title may be construed as altering or
adding to existing authorities for the extraterritorial
detention or rendition of any individual.
SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made by
this title.
TITLE II--ENEMY COMBATANTS
SEC. 201. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF ``UNLAWFUL ENEMY
COMBATANT'' FOR PURPOSES OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
Section 948a(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``means''; and
(2) by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(i) means a person who is not a lawful enemy combatant
and who--
``(I) has engaged in hostilities against the United States;
or
``(II) has purposefully and materially supported
hostilities against the United States (other than hostilities
engaged in as a lawful enemy combatant); and
``(ii) does not include any person who is--
``(I) a citizen of the United States or legally admitted to
the United States; and
``(II) taken into custody in the United States.''.
TITLE III--HABEAS CORPUS
SEC. 301. EXTENDING STATUTORY HABEAS CORPUS TO DETAINEES.
(a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e)(1) The United States District Court for the District
of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an
application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf
of any person detained by the United States who has been--
``(A) determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant; or
``(B) detained by the United States for more than 90 days
without such a determination.
``(2) The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an
application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf
of any person detained by the United States who has been
tried by military commission established under chapter 47A of
title 10, United States Code, and has exhausted the appellate
procedure under subchapter VI of that chapter.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter VI of chapter 47A of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking section 950g;
(B) in section 950h--
(i) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``Appointment of appellate counsel under this subsection
shall be for purposes of this chapter only, and not for any
proceedings relating to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus relating to any matter tried by a military
commission.''; and
(ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the
Supreme Court,'';
(C) in section 950j--
(i) by striking ``(a) Finality.--''; and
(ii) by striking subsection (b); and
(D) in the table of sections at the beginning of that
subchapter, by striking the item relating to section 950g.
(2) Detainee treatment acts.--
(A) In general.--Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2742; 10 U.S.C.
801 note) is amended--
(i) in subsection (e)--
(I) by striking paragraph (2); and
(II) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(ii) in subsection (h)(2)--
(I) by striking ``Paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting
``Paragraph (2)''; and
[[Page S9926]]
(II) by striking ``one of such paragraphs'' and inserting
``that paragraph''.
(B) Other amendments.--Section 1405 of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3475; 10
U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--
(i) in subsection (e)--
(I) by striking paragraph (2); and
(II) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(ii) in subsection (h)(2)--
(I) by striking ``Paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting
``Paragraph (2)''; and
(II) by striking ``one of such paragraphs'' and inserting
``that paragraph''.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
consider an action described in subparagraph (a) brought by
an alien who is in the custody of the United States, in a
zone of active hostility involving the United States Armed
Forces, and where the United States is implementing United
States Army Reg 190-8 (1997) or any successor, as certified
by the Secretary of Defense.
______
By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 1878. A bill to authorize grants for contributions toward the
establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with
my colleague Senator Warner which will authorize a one-time capital
grant by the National Archives to establish a Presidential library to
honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. Virginia is fortunate to have 8
native sons that went on to become President of the U.S. This is a
distinction that has led our fair Commonwealth to be known as the
``Mother of Presidents.'' The bipartisan bill we introduce today honors
the most recent of the eight and a native of Staunton, Virginia:
Woodrow Wilson.
Woodrow Wilson was one of the most influential statesmen, scholars,
and Presidents in American history. His impact on domestic and
international affairs is undeniable. Only now, nearly 100 years after
his presidency, are we able to fully appreciate the contributions
President Wilson made to the U.S. and to the world.
As a professor and President of Princeton University, Wilson created
a more accountable system for higher education. Through curriculum
reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and
quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the
world.
As a scholar, Wilson wrote numerous books and became an accomplished
essayist. Highly regarded for his work in political science, Wilson's
dissertation, entitled Congressional Government, is still admired today
as a study of federal lawmaking. He did this notwithstanding the fact
that he could not read until he was ten years old and may have suffered
from a learning disability such as dyslexia.
As a statesman and President, Wilson compiled a record of domestic
legislation that set the groundwork for modern America and reflected
his belief in the ideal that: ``Liberty does not consist . . . in mere
general declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the
translation of those declarations into definite action.'' He
spearheaded groundbreaking reform in finance, trade, industry and
labor, including anti-trust and child labor laws and women's suffrage.
During his two terms in office, he oversaw the birth of the Federal
Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission.
In spite of Wilson's significant contributions to American history
and his instrumental role in shaping the framework of the modern
international landscape, there exists no authorized Presidential
library dedicated to his achievements.
For the last 70 years, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library
Foundation in Staunton, Virginia has admirably served as caretaker of
Wilson's papers and artifacts, dedicating itself to the preservation of
Wilson's legacy. But it has done so without the resources afforded to
other Presidential libraries in the Federal system. Over time, the
Foundation has outgrown its current space and facilities. Now, with
each day that passes, the prevailing physical infrastructure severely
limits educational capabilities and opportunities to share the profound
legacy of President Wilson. Indeed, the foundation has even become
reluctant to take on many new major new Wilson collections because its
current controlled archival system is filled to capacity and cannot
protect additional collections in the absence of the new facility.
Accordingly, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization
Act authorizes a one-time capital grant from the National Archives for
the establishment of an independent Woodrow Wilson Presidential
Library. This library will serve as the center for education and study
of Woodrow Wilson's life and legacies, and will enable people from this
country and abroad to learn more about the life and work of our
Nation's 28th President. To be clear, this bill would establish the
Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library as an independent, privately-run
institution operating outside the existing Presidential Library System.
The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation will use the
Federal funds to offset costs associated with the construction of a
29,000 square foot Presidential library honoring President Wilson. As
planned, the library would include a research library, archives,
lecture hall, reception hall, orientation theater, ceremonial space,
and exhibit hall. These funds authorized under this legislation
represent the full Federal share of the project. Significantly, the
bill does not authorize ongoing operating subsidies on any other
ongoing expenses. This is a one time authorization.
The foundation's endeavor to construct the Woodrow Wilson
Presidential Library will create the only site in the country dedicated
to the exploration of the full life and legacies of the 28th President,
at his birthplace in Staunton, VA. A new library will alleviate stress
on existing foundation facilities and to allow for increased
educational outreach to the benefit of students in Virginia and across
the U.S. Construction of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library would
achieve the following objectives:
Make possible collaboration with the National Archives and
other presidential libraries, thereby fostering increased
awareness and study of American history and the institution
of the Presidency. Integrate cutting-edge digital archive
development. Promote tourism to Staunton and the Commonwealth
of Virginia to the benefit of all local economies.
Sensitive to the budgetary constraints faced by the National
Archives, let me reiterate we have crafted this legislation to minimize
and cap the financial burden on the Federal Government posed by this
project. First, the bill ensures the existence of a strong public-
private sponsorship by mandating that any Federal dollars are matched
two-for-one by the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation and
only after the nonfederal funds are certified to be in possession of
the nonprofit entity, an arrangement that Congress has used in the
past.
This legislation States that the Federal Government shall have no
role or responsibility for the operation of the library and guarantees
that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library will operate outside the
existing Presidential Library System. This is not an effort by the
nonprofit foundation to secure annual operating subsidies along the
lines of what Congress provides all Presidential Libraries in the
existing system.
This legislation enjoys broad, bipartisan, bicameral support in
Congress and broad support among individuals, organizations and
officials across the country. This bill is identical to legislation
approved by the House of Representatives by voice vote in the 109th
Congress on September 28, 2006, and which the entire Virginia House
delegation has reintroduced in the 110th Congress. I would note that
the Governor of Virginia has written Senator Warner and me to endorse
the project. So too have other regional officials, historians, and
representatives of other Presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth
of Virginia, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash-Lawn,
and Mount Vernon.
This project has the potential to benefit not only the greater
Staunton region, but Virginia and the Nation as a whole, both from a
historical/educational sense and by strengthening an important cultural
asset in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. We are advised that a new
building will be an open, welcoming forum for the hundreds of thousands
of American and foreign visitors who will visit each year to learn
about Woodrow Wilson and his
[[Page S9927]]
democratic legacies. The project sponsors believe that the country's
best museum designers will work with historians to turn the story of
Woodrow Wilson into an unforgettable experience that is fun,
educational, and permanently memorable.
In order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life,
principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the U.S., I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that Wilson's
legacy is more accessible and available for a wider audience for years
to come. I am hopeful that the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs will consider this legislation favorably and that
we can enact it during the remainder of this Congressional session.
With the 100th anniversary of his election just 5 years away, this is
the time for Congress to accept its responsibility to help preserve
President Woodrow Wilson's legacy and to improve its accessibility for
generations.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1878
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WOODROW WILSON
PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY.
(a) Grants Authorized.--Subject to subsections (b), (c),
and (d), the Archivist of the National Archives and Records
Administration may make grants to contribute funds for the
establishment in Staunton, Virginia, of a library to preserve
and make available materials related to the life of President
Woodrow Wilson and to provide interpretive and educational
services that communicate the meaning of the life of Woodrow
Wilson.
(b) Limitation.--A grant may be made under subsection (a)
only from funds appropriated to the Archivist specifically
for that purpose.
(c) Conditions on Grants.--
(1) Matching requirement.--A grant under subsection (a) may
not be made until such time as the entity selected to receive
the grant certifies to the Archivist that funds have been
raised from non-Federal sources for use to establish the
library in an amount equal to at least double the amount of
the grant.
(2) Relation to other woodrow wilson sites and museums.--
The Archivist shall further condition a grant under
subsection (a) on the agreement of the grant recipient to
operate the resulting library in cooperation with other
Federal and non-Federal historic sites, parks, and museums
that represent significant locations or events in the life of
Woodrow Wilson. Cooperative efforts to promote and interpret
the life of Woodrow Wilson may include the use of cooperative
agreements, cross references, cross promotion, and shared
exhibits.
(d) Prohibition of Contribution of Operating Funds.--Grant
amounts may not be used for the maintenance or operation of
the library.
(e) Non-Federal Operation.--The Archivist shall have no
involvement in the actual operation of the library, except at
the request of the non-Federal entity responsible for the
operation of the library.
(f) Authority Through Fiscal Year 2011.--The Archivist may
not use the authority provided under subsection (a) after
September 30, 2011.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Jim Webb,
to introduce legislation that seeks to establish the Woodrow Wilson
Presidential Library.
President Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, VA, in 1856. He was
first elected to the Presidency in 1912 and was reelected in 1916.
Throughout his lifetime, Wilson advocated engagement with other nations
in the search for peace, expansion of economic opportunities to more
Americans, commitment to democratic principles at home and abroad, and
protection of the Nation's people and institutions. He created the
Federal Reserve and was President when women were finally granted the
right to vote. President Wilson's legacy and historical significance
are forever linked with his profound efforts in World War I and its
aftermath, particularly with his attempts to broker a lasting peace in
a fractured Europe. He was a man of ideals, always maintaining a
``simple faith in the freedom of democracy.'' It is the utter strength
of his faith in democracy that continues to inspire our Nation today.
During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the growth and
development of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and have seen
firsthand the benefits it has provided for its community, the
Commonwealth, and the country. The library has done remarkable work in
preserving and protecting historical documents related to Woodrow
Wilson's life. Equally remarkable has been its ability to share his
life with communities around the world.
As you know, Virginia is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of
Presidents,'' as it has produced more Presidents than any other State
in the Union, eight in total. I want to respectfully acknowledge our
most recent President from the Commonwealth of Virginia through the
recognition of this Presidential library. I can think of no better
place to preserve his life's work than where his life began.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important
legislation. I urge my colleagues to honor President Wilson's legacy by
joining me in support of this bill.
____________________