A bill to authorize grants for contributions toward the establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.