Title I Education Funding Integrity Act of 2009

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation's neediest students learn.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including about 3 million California school children.

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear guidelines for how these important dollars should be used.

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind''.

While State administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear as possible to States and school districts.

This legislation would define Title I direct and indirect instructional services.

It would set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program.

It would ensure that the majority, 90 percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not use more than 10 percent of these funds for administrative or indirect instructional services.

By setting a standard for the amount of funds that school districts can spend on administrative or indirect services, we ensure that the majority of Title I dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply

the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits; intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance or janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

We should give the Department, States, and school districts clearer guidance in law.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office to report on how States use their Title I funds.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created its own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report.

The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds; and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal Title I dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this fundamental purpose without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

Federal funding is only about 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

It is critical that Federal guidance be provided to ensure that Title I funds go where they are needed most--improving the academic performance of low-income children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Recod.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act.'' This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins and Charles Schumer. A companion bill is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Mr. Israel and Mr. Inslee.

Let me first acknowledge the important role of one of my colleagues, Senator Salazar, who initiated much of the thought and drafting for this legislation at the end of the last Congress. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for letting us take up the work needed to move this bill forward as he begins to transition into his new role with the incoming Obama administration.

Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation--which I authored

with Senator Snowe and others--to improve the fuel efficiency of America's fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years, or from 25 miles per gallon to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

But the fact is that we face real challenges with trying to encourage drivers to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles for a cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicle--particularly in this tough economic climate.

This bill is designed to address that problem.

First, let me explain this legislation.

This bill would establish an incentive program at the Department of Energy to provide a voucher, or coupon, of between $2,500 to $4,500 to a consumer who trades in an inefficient, used vehicle for a much more efficient car, truck, or SUV.

The traded-in vehicles--which must be then dismantled or scrapped-- must meet the following requirements; have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallons, be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days.

To receive the benefit of the coupon, purchased vehicles must exceed Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent and have a suggested retail price below $45,000.

The size of the coupon varies based upon the expected oil savings created by trading in the vehicle.

The voucher program will be set up to provide larger credits to new, more recent vehicles that would otherwise be on the road for many more years, while older ``clunker'' models would be eligible for smaller credits.

The bill specifies that during the first year of the program, vouchers will be issued for the following amounts: For model year 2002 and later: new vehicle: $4,500, used vehicle: $3,000, transit fare credit: $3,000. For model year 1999-2001: new vehicle: $3,000, used vehicle: $2,000, transit fare credit: $2,000. For model year 1998 and earlier: new vehicle: $2,500, used vehicle: $1,500, transit fare credit: $1,500. In each subsequent year, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the model years would be advanced by 1 year.

Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to 2 years after the date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more than one voucher in any 3-year period.

Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to be specified by the Secretary of Energy.

Simply put, this legislation offers a unique opportunity to both stimulate automobile industry sales and reduce vehicular oil use, creating a win-win policy for all involved.

As we know, our Nation's automobile industry is in serious trouble.

Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford have all asserted in their recent viability plans that their dire financial situation is a direct result of the collapse in automobile sales.

The new car sales rate has dropped to less than 11 million vehicles sold annually, compared to the 16.2 million vehicles sold in the United States in 2007.

The major Detroit and Japanese carmakers all reported double digit sales drops for December. General Motors reported sales dropped 31 percent; Ford Motor Co. reported a drop of 32 percent; Chrysler LLC reported sales plummeted 53 percent; Honda Motor Co. said its sales fell 34 percent; Nissan North America said its sales fell 30 percent and Toyota Motor Co. said its U.S. sales fell 37 percent.

Bottom line: The automobile companies are all in trouble because far fewer people are buying automobiles.

According to J.D. Power and Associates, this has produced dealer lots full of vehicles that can't be sold. Over the past year the number of days that a vehicle sits on a lot has almost doubled.

The problem is most severe for Chrysler, GM and Ford. Their vehicles all sat on dealer lots for in excess of 100 days last year.

By encouraging automobile sales, this legislation would go a long way to addressing the significant troubles that America's once mighty car industry now faces.

While emergency bridge loans help auto companies make payroll, only stimulating automobile sales will cure the disease that confronts the automobile sector.

By creating a voucher system for the purchase of a vehicle with certain attributes, this legislation would stimulate sales at precisely the right moment.

Perhaps that is why General Motors went out of its way to endorse this kind of program in its recent Viability Plan, recommended ``tax credits for scrapping older, higher-carbon emitting vehicles.''

This legislation would also assist owners of the least efficient vehicles who are least likely to trade their cars in for something more efficient.

The trade-in value of inefficient vehicles has plummeted, making a trade-in financially difficult.

In a November 2008 analysis, Kelley Blue Book concluded: ``[T]his year's vehicles with the lowest retained value include vehicles that are not fuel friendly with large V-8 engines. . . . These gas misers . . . will only maintain 20 percent of their original value after five years of ownership.''

Bottom line: The legislation is stimulus of the most important kind. It would provide incentives for new vehicle sales, incentivize the trade-in of inefficient vehicles, and reward consumers who want to reduce their oil use and carbon footprint.

This proposal also provides important benefits for the environment-- and addressing the challenges of climate change.

I have been a long time champion of increasing fuel economy standards, and I was extremely proud to have authored the new fuel economy law with Senator Snowe, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law in December 2007.

But new CAFE standards will not take effect until model year 2011. They cannot make up for our failure to increase standards for the past 3 decades.

The bill we are introducing today would target the very vehicles that CAFE standards are unable to reach: older fuel-inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs

It will provide incentives to consumers who wish to buy the most efficient vehicles available during the 2 years before the new CAFE standards will require improvement.

It will provide incentives to remove the most inefficient vehicles that would have never been part of the fleet had Congress acted to increase CAFE standards 5 years ago.

The result is considerable oil savings and significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to analysis by the non-partisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, by 2013 this legislation would prompt the trade in of between 500,000 and 1 million of the dirtiest, least efficient vehicles on the road today.

As a result, by 2013 between 40,000 and 80,000 fewer barrels of oil per day will be burned; between 6.6 million metric tons and 13.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year will not be emitted.

This is the equivalent of removing between 1.1 million and 2.2 million cars from the road.

In our current economic and environmental circumstance, there are few opportunities to both help the automobile industry evolve and improve the fuel economy of the fleet.

This idea--providing consumers with an incentive to trade in their inefficient vehicle for something far better--will stimulate the economy and save oil, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I strongly encourage the Obama administration and the Appropriations Committee to authorize and fund this proposal in the stimulus.

I am committed to advancing the goals of stimulus and fuel savings, and have put what I believe to be the best proposal to meet these goals.

I understand that within the details of this idea, there may be different views. I am open to suggestions that improve the structure of the program proposed by this legislation, and ask my colleagues to communicate their thoughts soon.

Finally, I hope non-related matters--such as trade policy--will not prevent my colleagues from supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal Title I education funds are targeted to help our Nation's neediest students learn.

Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country, serving over 12.5 million children in low-income schools, including about 3 million California school children.

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for academic instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided clear guidelines for how these important dollars should be used.

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind''.

While State administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear as possible to States and school districts.

This legislation would define Title I direct and indirect instructional services.

It would set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program.

It would ensure that the majority, 90 percent, of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that a school district may not use more than 10 percent of these funds for administrative or indirect instructional services.

By setting a standard for the amount of funds that school districts can spend on administrative or indirect services, we ensure that the majority of Title I dollars are used by districts to help improve student academic achievement.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply

the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits; intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement; purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment; developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance or janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

We should give the Department, States, and school districts clearer guidance in law.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office to report on how States use their Title I funds.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the States, the accounting office created its own definition by compiling aspects of State priorities to complete the report.

The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds; and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe that States must use their limited Federal Title I dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.

Second, I believe that it is nearly impossible to achieve this fundamental purpose without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

Federal funding is only about 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

It is critical that Federal guidance be provided to ensure that Title I funds go where they are needed most--improving the academic performance of low-income children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Recod.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to designate the United States Post Office at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, IL, as the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building,'' honoring the first African-American to achieve the rank of Colonel in the Illinois Reserves.

Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr., was born on December 28, 1918, in Springfield, IL. In 1942, he enlisted in World War II and served in five battle campaigns in Europe, including in General Patton's advance in France, for which he was awarded the Silver Star Medal.

In addition to his 14 years of active duty service, he served for 17 years in the Illinois Reserves. He served as group commander in Springfield from 1967-1973 and was promoted to Colonel in 1965, making him the first African-American to achieve that rank in the Illinois Reserves at that time. Upon his retirement in 1973, he was awarded the Legion of Merit from the Army.

In his civilian life, Col. Wilson worked for the United States Postal Service for 57 years. From time to time, he would stop by my office in Springfield to share news about our local post office and make sure our mail was being delivered on time. Whenever he could, he would stop by to see me in Washington.

Anyone who knew Col. Wilson also knew of his love for the Reserves. He was a life member of the U.S. Reserve Officers Association, President of the ROA Springfield Chapter from 1960-61 and President of the ROA Illinois Department from 1971-72.

He was also a commercial photographer, member of the Military Officers of America, and lifelong member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church.

He died on August 30, 2008, in the same home of his birth. He is survived by his wife of 62 years, Lydie, and their two daughters, Shirley Wilson and Chantal Sneed.

Col. Wilson was a distinguished man of service. My hometown of Springfield, IL and our Nation is a better place because of his lifelong commitment to his country.

I am grateful to Springfield Mayor Timothy Davlin, former Illinois National Guard Adjutant General Lou Myers, and the local branch of the American Postal Workers Union for their support of this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in enacting this tribute to Col. Wilson.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in the fall of 2007, at least nine veterans died at the Marion VA Medical Center as a result of the poor medical care they received. We immediately learned that a VA surgeon, who had operated on some of these veterans, was not qualified to work at the VA but slipped through the hiring process. Later, VA investigations revealed much larger problems in the management of the facility--problems that employees kept secret out of fear for losing their jobs. Today, I am reintroducing legislation to help ensure that incidents like these never take place again at Marion or another VA medical center.

I asked the VA to investigate the circumstances surrounding these unfortunate deaths as soon as they came to light. The VA investigation revealed that Marion hospital management knew that doctors, including the surgeon at issue, were not properly credentialed but failed to act. The surgeon remained employed at the Marion hospital and practiced there for more than a year. Had he not been hired to work at Marion, many of his patients may have survived their surgeries.

The VA investigation revealed additional quality of care issues at the Marion hospital. Management disregarded VA quality care directives in the face of serious patient incident reports and surgical data collected to ensure quality of care. They ignored or failed to recognize warning signs that there were problems in the surgical program.

The investigation also showed many Marion Medical Center employees feared reporting quality of care issues. They worried that quality of care might be suffering at the facility but hesitated to report those concerns for fear of losing their jobs. A primary reason is that such reports were funneled through management at the facility, rather than being handled by an independent and confidential outlet focused solely on quality of care.

The legislation I am introducing would improve quality of care across the VA medical care system.

First, it would improve the process of vetting doctors who apply to or work for the VA and restore accountability to physician hiring and retention practices.

Second, the legislation would expand the quality control programs in the VA health care system. The bill creates new quality assurance officer positions, gives VA employees new forums to raise concerns about the quality of care at a VA facility, without fear of retribution, and establishes strong peer review mechanisms for physicians.

Third, the legislation would create incentives to encourage high- quality doctors to practice at VA hospitals. In return for agreeing to practice in hard-to-serve areas, doctors and medical students could participate in student loan forgiveness and tuition reimbursement programs. Doctors would also be eligible to participate in the federal employee health insurance program.

Fourth, where practical, VA medical facilities would be required to establish affiliations with nearby medical schools. These partnerships would expose medical students to careers with the VA. In return, the VA would benefit from the energy and innovative ideas brought by students working in their facilities. In addition, VA hospitals would benefit from access to experienced medical school faculty members.

Finally, the bill would encourage the VA to increase its recruitment of experienced doctors who are willing to practice for our veterans. The VA must hire and retain only highly qualified doctors as it takes on these tremendous responsibilities.

Every one of the tragic deaths at the Marion VA hospital violated the obligation our Nation owes to its veterans. Each of their lives can never be replaced. The Veterans Health Care Quality Improvement Act is a strong step toward avoiding such tragedies in the future and reestablishing trust in the veterans health care system.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill, the Giving Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere Act. In today's economic climate, Americans need relief--especially people who volunteer to help the less fortunate in their communities. We can't let an out-of-date mileage rate for volunteers who use their vehicles for charitable purposes exacerbate the pinch at the pump they are experiencing. Now,

while it is true that gas prices have retreated from their historic highs since last summer, the principle still stands: the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, should have discretion in setting the mileage rate for charitable organizations. This legislation will provide immediate relief for volunteers serving our elderly, poor, frail, and at-risk Americans. I'm pleased that the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my other colleagues, the senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, and the junior Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, have joined me in introducing this legislation. They have worked extremely hard on this issue. I would also like to thank Senators Grassley, Feingold, Leahy, Alexander, Sanders, Burr, Dodd, and Cantwell for being original co-sponsors of this bill.

The Internal Revenue Code does not fix a rate for individuals who are required to use their own vehicle for work, or for individuals taking a mileage deduction for moving purposes. The IRS is able to increase the deduction amount for these purposes to reflect the current economic climate and dramatically higher fuel prices. This is exactly what the IRS recently did.

Last July, the IRS modified the standard mileage rates for computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving expenses. The revised standard mileage rate for business purposes increased from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS increased the rate from 19 cents per mile to 27 cents per mile. I think the Nation's volunteers who travel on behalf of charitable organizations deserve an increase in their mileage rate, too.

Just recently, the IRS again modified the standard mileage rates for computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving expenses. As of January 1, the revised standard mileage rate for business purposes was decreased from 58.5 cents to 55 cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS decreased the rate from 27 cents per mile to 24 cents per mile. This ability to change the rate due to the cost of gasoline or the economic climate is crucial and should be permitted for the Nation's charitable organizations.

My bill gives the IRS flexibility in setting the rate so that volunteers for charitable organizations could be given the same tax benefit accruing for moving, medical, and business expenses. It also provides a floor for volunteers, not allowing their rate to be set lower than moving and medical rate. In today's climate of increasing food and fuel prices, this bill will help relieve some of the pressure on charitable organizations and their volunteers. Additionally, this bill will allow the organization to reimburse the volunteer up to the business rate without any tax impact to volunteers.

Take Meals on Wheels, for example. This organization delivers nutritious meals and other nutrition services to men and women who are elderly, homebound, disabled, frail, or otherwise at-risk. The services Meals on Wheels provides significantly improve the recipients' quality of life and health, and often help to postpone institutionalization.

Over the past year, there has been nearly a 20 percent increase in fuel and food prices, coupled with reduced government funding and fewer donations across the country. Nearly 60 percent of the estimated 5,000 programs that operate under the auspices of the Meals on Wheels Association of America have lost volunteers, in large part because it became too expensive for the volunteers to drive back and forth. Nearly half the programs have eliminated routes or consolidated meal services. About 38 percent of the programs have switched to delivering frozen meals, and about 30 percent are cutting personal visits from 5 days a week to one.

In Maryland, the Central Maryland Meals on Wheels has experienced an increase of 7 percent in food costs and suppliers are charging higher delivery fees. The cost to fill up the vans with gas has increased. Fuel costs averaged $72,538.70 in fiscal year 2007; this year, the costs have jumped to $86,790.63. This is an organization with volunteers serving over 3,100 elderly, disabled, frail, and at-risk Marylanders. Its volunteers deserve relief from high gas prices just as much as people who use their car for work or for medical purposes or for moving.

Throughout the United States, Meals on Wheels served over 3 million people and more than 250 million meals in fiscal year 2006. This is just one of thousands of charitable organizations. We need to encourage and support the Meals on Wheels volunteers and all other volunteers who need their cars to help their neighbors and communities. The Giving Incentives to Volunteers Everywhere bill will do just that, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2009. This bill is identical to one I introduced last summer, along with Senators Hatch, Chambliss, Burr, and Warner. Last week, my colleague and good friend on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, introduced a bill that, among other things, requires all intelligence interrogations to be conducted only in accordance with the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual was designed to monitor and to describe the techniques which could be used by the many thousands and tens of thousands of Army personnel who might be engaged in interrogating people caught in field operations. Unfortunately, I believe this is the wrong approach.

First, the Army Field Manual is a document that can be changed by the Secretary of the Army without ever coming back to Congress. It was meant to deal with Army personnel--the fine men and women of the Army. The next problem is that by setting legislative standards according to a departmental policy manual, Congress, in effect, would be ceding our legislative function to the Secretary of the Army. Even more importantly, I don't believe we should have a one-size-fits-all approach when we are talking about interrogations that would be conducted by the military or the FBI over here or the CIA over here and a host of other different agencies, all with different missions and priorities.

Mr. President, if you have followed the history of intelligence from the post-9/11 system, you know there are certain high-value detainees-- who are captured on infrequent occasions--who are questioned at length by skilled interrogators to find out the details of potential plans of which they know--attacks on allies or in our country. It is different from capturing somebody in the field who might be able to yield tactical intelligence but certainly has no strategic intelligence. We are much safer today because we have been able to garner intelligence from high-value detainees who have known about a broad range of people involved and those potential operations they may undertake.

The final, and perhaps the most important reason not to limit interrogation techniques for other agencies beyond the Army--to limit them to that published in the field manual--is because broadcasting to al-Qaida and other terrorists exactly what techniques will be used in interrogating them is a recipe for failure. We know these high-value targets, the people who are leaders of these organizations, will train for whatever techniques we tell them we are using. It is not too hard to figure out that if we tell them

with certainty only 19 techniques listed in the field manual will be used, they will train to resist them, and the net result will be we will not get anymore intelligence.

The bill I am introducing does not have that flaw. Rather than authorizing intelligence agencies to use only those techniques that are allowed in the Army Field Manual--the AFM--I believe the better approach, if any change needs to be made to current law, is to preclude the use of specific techniques that are prohibited under the AFM. Specifically, the bill says you cannot use interrogation techniques; No. 1, forcing the individual to be naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; No. 2, placing hoods or sacks over the heads of individuals or using duct tape over the individual's eyes; No. 3, applying beatings, electric shock, burns or similar forms of physical pain; No. 4, using the technique known as waterboarding; No. 5, using military working dogs; No. 6, inducing hypothermia or heat injury; No. 7, conducting mock executions; or, No. 8, depriving the individuals of adequate food, water, or medical care.

Now, these list the kinds of techniques that are generally described as torture. Let me assure you there are many techniques which are similar in degree of duress to those permitted in the Army Field Manual. The reason to be able to use others is because the most important part of any interrogation technique is the unknown. When the detainee does not know what techniques are permitted, then the detainee does not know what to expect. Under those circumstances, even though the techniques are no more harsh, no more painful than Army Field Manual techniques, there is a much greater chance a skilled interrogator will get that information.

I believe in this way Congress can state clearly that harsh interrogation techniques will not be permissible without advertising the techniques that are permissible. The Intelligence Committee will be briefed on any techniques that are considered for use and have the opportunity to object to anything we believe should not be permissible. This new approach allows for the possibility that new techniques that are not explicitly authorized in the Army Field Manual but which comply with law may be developed in the future.

I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This legislation establishes an important principle, and I hope we can adopt this legislation.