[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.

                          ____________________