[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5536-S5543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 2617. A bill to protect the rights of American consumers to 
diagnose, service, and repair motor vehicles purchased in the United 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Motor 
Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2002. This legislation would 
protect the viability of independent service station and repair shops 
and ensure that consumers will continue to have a choice of automotive 
service providers.
  The 1990 Clean Air Act mandated that vehicle manufacturers install 
computer systems to monitor emissions in 1994 model year cars and 
beyond. Today, many vehicle systems are integrated into the car's 
computer system, making auto repair an increasingly ``high tech'' 
business and making access to the computer and the information it 
contains vital to the ability to perform repairs.
  Increasingly, however, independent repair shops are being barred 
access to the codes and diagnostic tools necessary to repair newer 
model cars. The effect is to reduce consumer choice for auto repair 
services, and to endanger the livelihood thousands of small, family 
owned repair shops across the country.
  On April 10, I met with a group of repair shop owners from Minnesota. 
The explained that new practices by some auto manufactures were 
preventing them from competing on an even playing field. One thing we 
don't need is another industry where all the little guys, the small, 
independent businesses, are driven out. This is terrible for our 
communities. And reduced competition means higher prices for consumers
  Specifically, the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act would 
simply require a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold in the United 
States to disclose to the vehicle owner, a repair facility, and the 
Federal Trade Commission, FTC, the information necessary to diagnose, 
service, or repair the vehicle. The bill bars the FTC from requiring 
disclosure of any information entitled to protection as a 
manufacturer's trade secret.
  This legislation is an example of what is good for small business is 
good for the consumer. The bill is endorsed by the 44 million member 
American Automobile Association, AAA, as well as the Automotive Service 
Association, the trade association of automotive service professionals.
  To reiterate, I want to introduce a bill and tell colleagues about 
it. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. This is very much a 
pro-consumer bill as well. It is called the Motor Vehicle and Owners 
Right to Repair Act. There has to be a better title.
  Basically, this is the issue. The automotive industry, for 100 years, 
has always shared information with mechanics. But post-1994, you have 
cars with very computerized systems. All of a sudden, the automotive 
industry is now saying to independent mechanics, we will not share with 
you the information about the computer system so you can get into the 
computer system, do the diagnosis and the repair, in which case I think 
it is a blatant anticompetitive practice.

[[Page S5537]]

  It puts the independent mechanics, the small guys, out of business. 
In addition, it says to the consumers: Listen, you might want to take 
your car back to the dealership for repair, but now that is your only 
choice because you may want to go to the neighborhood mechanic you have 
worked with for years and he might want your business, but we are going 
to make it impossible for him to get your business. We are going to 
make it impossible for you to go there.
  I like this piece of legislation because it is little guy versus big 
guy. It feels right to me. At 5 feet, 5 inches, I like the little guys.
  In April, some mechanics came by our office and talked with Perry 
Lang, who works with me, and they said this is happening to us and 
asked for some help.
  I say on the floor of the Senate two things: No. 1, I am circulating 
a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. I hope to get a lot of support. I think 
there will be a lot of support.
  This is going on in the House with a lot of Republicans as well as 
Democrats.
  The second thing that I am saying to the industry today on the floor 
of the Senate--and I think they are watching this carefully--is we are 
going to get a good head of steam on this. If you want to sit down and 
negotiate an agreement with the mechanics that is fair to these 
independent mechanics, go ahead. Then we won't have to pass the 
legislation. But I could not believe when I heard the report of what 
they are dealing with.
  Again, you have a blatant anticompetitive practice of the industry 
basically saying we will not share with you any information about our 
computerized systems. If the industry wants to say there is some kind 
of a trade patent secret which they can't share, they can go to the FTC 
and get approval for that. Otherwise, for 100 years, this has not 
happened. Now we get into a blatant collusion, anticompetitive practice 
that is unfair to the independent mechanics who a lot of Senators know 
as friends and as small businesspeople. I am aiming to stop it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 2619. A bill to provide for the analysis of the incidence and 
effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to 
provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding to protect 
individuals from prison rape; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Supreme Court has made clear, 
``being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty 
that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'' 
Government officials have a duty under the Constitution to prevent 
prison violence.
  Too often, however, officials fail to take obvious steps to protect 
vulnerable inmates. Prison rape is a serious problem in our Nation's 
prisons, jails, and detention facilities. Of the two million prisoners 
in the United States, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten 
has been raped. According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in 
Nebraska had been pressured or forced to have sex against their will 
while incarcerated. Human Rights Watch recently reported, ``shockingly 
high rates of sexual abuse'' in U.S. prisons.
  Prison rape causes severe physical and psychological pain to its 
victims. It also leads to the increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis, 
and other diseases. The brutalization in prison also makes it more 
likely that prisoners will commit crimes after they are released, as 
600,000 prisoners are each year.
  To deal with this serious problem, Senator Sessions  and I are today 
introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. This bipartisan 
legislation is intended to address the prison-rape epidemic in an 
effective and comprehensive manner, while still respecting the primary 
role of States and local governments in administering prisons and 
jails.
  Our bill directs the Department of Justice to conduct an annual 
statistical review and analysis of the frequency and effects of prison 
rape. It establishes a special panel to conduct hearings on prison 
systems, prisons, and jails where the incidence of rape is high. It 
directs the Attorney General to collect complaints of rape from 
inmates, transmit them to the appropriate authorities, and review how 
the authorities respond. It also directs the Attorney General to 
provide information, assistance, and training to Federal, State, and 
local authorities on the prevention, investigation, and punishment of 
prison rape.
  Our bill also authorizes $40 million in grants to enhance the 
prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. These grants 
will strengthen the ability of state and local officials to prevent 
these abuses.
  Finally, our bill establishes a commission that will conduct hearings 
over two years and recommend national correctional standards on a wide 
range of issues, including inmate classification, investigation of rape 
complaints, trauma case for rape victims, disease prevention, and staff 
training. These standards should apply as soon as possible to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison accreditation organizations that 
receive Federal funding should also adopt the standards. States should 
adopt the standards too. If they ``opt out'' by passing a statute, they 
will suffer no penalty, but States that fail to act at all will lose 20 
percent of their prison-related federal funding.
  Our bill is supported by a broad coalition of religious, civil 
rights, and human rights organizations, including the Salvation Army, 
the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of 
Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, Focus on the Family, the Presbyterian 
Church, the Justice Policy Institute, the Sentencing Project, Youth Law 
Center, Human Rights Watch, the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, and the National Council of La Raza. 
Together, these diverse groups have demonstrated impressive moral 
leadership on this issue.
  It is a privilege to work on this legislation with Congressmen Frank 
Wolf and Bobby Scott in the House and Senator Sessions in the Senate. 
While we may disagree on other issues relating to criminal justice, we 
all recognize that rape is unacceptable, and it is long past time to 
end it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for 
his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have 
enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we 
are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though 
Senator Kennedy and I come from different backgrounds and have 
different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should 
act to reduce prison rape.
  I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott for 
their important leadership on this bill in the House of 
Representatives. Congressman Wolf is a recognized champion for human 
dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is 
consistent with his philosophy. Congressman Scott is very knowledgeable 
on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on 
many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape.
  As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of 
Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I 
believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated 
them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in 
prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public 
servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend 
my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this 
area.
  However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual 
punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates 
in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is 
an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to 
ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve 
the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful 
sentence.
  This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three 
principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National 
Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local 
levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results

[[Page S5538]]

of its study and make recommendations on how to reduce prison rape.
  Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the 
reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent 
reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a 
statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons. 
This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with 
prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue.
  Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct 
statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local 
prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select 
officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape 
exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and 
testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their 
institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent 
of certain Federal funds.
  In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States 
for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This 
will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates.
  A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have 
added their support to this bill. The list includes: American 
Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness 
Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom 
House; Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation 
of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on 
the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard 
Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the 
Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy 
Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association 
of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National 
Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza; 
National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin 
Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug 
Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious 
Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy 
Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist 
Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile 
Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center.

  I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their 
work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for 
ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects 
those values.
  I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the 
ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived, 
carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political 
initiatives that become law after people work together to form a 
bipartisan, moral position.
  I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney 
general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this 
legislation at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship, 
has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on 
this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and 
leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people 
and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and 
prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at 
the press conference to express his support of the bill.
  This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and 
lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to 
expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary 
step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Biden);
  S. 2621. A bill to provide a definition of vehicle for purposes of 
criminal penalties relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of 
violence against mass transportation systems; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation today 
with Senator Biden to clarify that an airplane is a vehicle for 
purposes of terrorist and other violent acts against mass 
transportation systems. A significant question about this point has 
been raised in an important criminal case and deserves our prompt 
attention.
  Earlier this week, on June 11, 2002, a U.S. District Judge in Boston 
dismissed one of the nine charges against Richard Reid stemming from 
his alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device in his shoe while 
onboard an international flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 
2001. The dismissed count charged defendant Reid with violating section 
1993 of title 18, United States Code, by attempting to ``wreck, set 
fire to, and disable a mass transportation vehicle.''
  Section 1993 is a new criminal law that was added, as section 801, to 
the USA PATRIOT Act to punish terrorist attacks and other acts of 
violence against, inter alia, a ``mass transportation'' vehicle or 
ferry, or against a passenger or employee of a mass transportation 
provider. I had urged that this provision be included in the final 
anti-terrorism law considered by the Congress. A similar provision was 
originally part of S. 2783, the ``21st Century Law Enforcement and 
Public Safety Act,'' that I introduced in the last Congress in June, 
2000 on the request of the Clinton Administration.
  The district court rejected defendant Reid's arguments to dismiss the 
section 1993 charge on grounds that 1. the penalty provision does not 
apply to an ``attempt'' and 2. an airplane is not engaged in ``mass 
transportation.'' ``Mass transportation'' is defined in section 1993 by 
reference to the ``the meaning given to that term in section 5302(a)(7) 
of title 49, U.S.C., except that the term shall include schoolbus, 
charter and sightseeing transportation.'' Section 5302(a)(7), in turn, 
provides the following definition: ``mass transportation'' means 
transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing 
general or special transportation to the public, but does not include 
school bus, charter or sightseeing transportation.'' The court 
explained that ``commercial aircraft transport large numbers of people 
every day'' and that the definition of ``mass transportation'' ``when 
read in an ordinary or natural way, encompasses aircraft of the kind at 
issue here.'' U.S. v. Reid, CR No. 02-10013, at p. 10, 12 (D. MA, June 
11, 2002).
  Defendant Reid also argued that the section 1993 charge should be 
dismissed because an airplane is not a ``vehicle.'' The court agreed, 
citing the fact that the term ``vehicle'' is not defined in section 
1993 and that the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 4, narrowly defines 
``vehicle'' to include ``every description of carriage or other 
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
transportation on land.'' Emphasis in original opinion. Notwithstanding 
common parlance and other court decisions that have interpreted this 
Dictionary Act definition to encompass aircraft, the district court 
relied on the narrow definition to conclude that an aircraft is not a 
``vehicle'' within the meaning of section 1993.
  The new section 1993 was intended to provide broad federal criminal 
jurisdiction over terrorist and violent acts against all mass 
transportation systems, not only bus services but also commercial 
airplanes, cruise ships, railroads and other forms of transportation 
available for public carriage. The bill I introduce today would add a 
definition of ``vehicle'' to section 1993 and clarify that an airplane 
is a ``vehicle'' both in common parlance and under this new criminal 
law to protect mass transportation systems. Specifically, the bill 
would define this term to mean ``any carriage or other contrivance 
used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land, 
water or through the air.''
  I urge the Senate to act promptly and pass this legislation. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2621

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITION.

       Section 1993(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--

[[Page S5539]]

       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the term `vehicle' means any carriage or other 
     contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
     transportation on land, water, or through the air.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 2622. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a 
gold medal on behalf of Congress to Joseph A. De Laine in recognition 
of his contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to present Reverend Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal in 
honor of his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His 
crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own 
life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.
  Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, 
Rev. De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American 
parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and 
gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a 
segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliott, the parents sued 
to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched 
Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five 
cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this 
Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters.
  For his efforts, Rev. De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic 
terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was 
charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were 
fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave 
South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME 
Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 
2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his 
home was Rev. De Laine cleared of all charges.
  Last month, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and 
I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which 
show the bravery of Rev. De Laine during a troubled time in our 
Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has 
given our Nation.
  There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Briggs v. Elliott Descendants Re-union Banquet, Summerton, South 
                         Carolina, May 11, 2002

       I want to give you an insight into exactly what happened to 
     your parents 50 years ago in Summerton, SC, that led to the 
     desegregation of our Nation's schools by the Supreme Court of 
     the United States.
       I speak with some trepidation, because right now I can see 
     Harry Briggs' son walking down that dirt road all the way 
     here to Scotts Branch School, and that school bus passing, 
     all for the white children. Yet all your families were asking 
     for was a bus. But they were told: ``you don't pay any taxes, 
     so how can you ask for a bus?'' What they didn't say is you 
     didn't have a job, whereby you could make a living and be 
     able to pay the taxes. They didn't say that.
       I think of the threats, the burnings, the shooting up of 
     Reverend John De Laine's home. I think about how they turned 
     him into a fugitive. He had to leave his home in South 
     Carolina, never to return. Harry Briggs had to leave his home 
     and go to Florida to earn a living. It's not for me to tell 
     the descendants of the Briggs v. Elliott case how they have 
     suffered.
       I didn't try this case, don't misunderstand me. My 
     beginnings with Briggs v. Elliott started in 1948 when I was 
     elected to the House of Representatives in Columbia.
       The previous year James Hinton, the head of the NAACP in 
     the State gave a speech in Columbia. He talked about the need 
     to get separate but equal facilities. He got Rev. De Laine 
     from Summerton in the audience all fired up. Rev. De Laine, 
     who was the principal here, put together a petition signed by 
     20 parents, of 46 children, the Summerton 66.
       I'll never forget the day after I was sworn into the 
     Legislature the superintendent of schools in Charleston 
     County took me across the Cooper River Bridge, down the 
     Mathis Ferry Road, to the Freedom School, the black school. 
     He said I want to show you what we really do, he used the 
     word at that time, ``for a Negro education.''
       This was a cold November Day, and we went into a big one-
     room building. That's all they had, one room, with a pot 
     belly stove in the middle. They had a class in this corner, a 
     class in that back corner, a class up front in this corner, 
     and a class here. Of course, they didn't have any desks, and 
     very few books, and one teacher teaching the four classes.
       When I went to Columbia I was with a bunch of rebels. I 
     introduced an anti-lynching bill. I had never heard of 
     lynchings down in Charleston, but then they had one. As we 
     debated the bill, a fellow who was the grand dragon of the 
     Klan got up with all these Klansmen in the Gallery, and he 
     mumbled and raised cane. Speaker Blott got some order. But 
     several House members walked out. They said they wouldn't be 
     seated in the Legislature with a fellow like that. We passed 
     the anti-lynching bill.
       I'm trying to give you this background, so you'll 
     understand the significance of what your parents did. We had 
     just had the case, whereby blacks could participate in the 
     Democratic primary. And we had just given women the right to 
     vote.
       And in 1949 and 1950, I struggled because there was no 
     money in the state for separate but equal schools, or 
     anything else. I said we ought to put in a 3 percent sales 
     tax to pay for things. Governor Thurmond opposed it, and the 
     senators particularly opposed it. But I made the motion for a 
     one-cent tax on cigarettes; a one-cent tax on gasoline; and a 
     one-cent tax on beer. Beer, cigarettes, and gasoline.
       We formed a House Committee with six of us to work on it. 
     We worked all summer. It's a long story, but let me cut it 
     and say by December we had it all written. I knew the 
     incoming governor, Governor Byrnes. I felt it would be good 
     to ask him to see if he could help me with this measure.
       The second week in January, before he was sworn in, he 
     called me and said: ``You've got to come to Columbia, I'm 
     going to include this in my Inaugural address.'' Over 
     time, I made 79 talks on the proposal, until we finally 
     passed the sales tax, which provided some money for 
     separate but equal schools.
       When the Briggs v. Elliott case came up, before Judge 
     Waring in Charleston, he questioned separate but equal. Then 
     in December 1952, the case went to the Supreme Court. 
     Governor Byrnes had served on the State Supreme Court, and he 
     wanted to make sure we won the case. In my mind, he was 
     absolutely sure that under Chief Justice Vinson the State 
     would win it.
       But to make sure, he set aside Mr. Bob McC. Figg, who had 
     done all the work, and selected John W. Davis, as the 
     attorney for South Carolina against Thurgood Marshall, who 
     was representing Briggs and the NAACP. Mr. Davis had been the 
     Solicitor General of the United States. He had been the 
     Democratic nominee for president in 1924. He was considered 
     the greatest constitutional mind in the country.
       The second thing the Governor did was to call me up and 
     say: ``I'm appointing you to go to Washington, because you 
     know intimately this law here that built the schools. You 
     have to go to Washington in case any questions of fact come 
     up.''
       So we took a train to Washington. We came in at 6 o'clock 
     that morning at Union Station, and we sat down for breakfast. 
     I'll never forget it, because Thurgood Marshall walked in. He 
     and Bob McC. Figg had become real close friends. So he sat 
     down and was eating breakfast with us, and we began swapping 
     stories.
       Mr. Marshall said ``Bob, you know that black family that 
     moved into that white neighborhood in Cicero, IL. They have 
     so much trouble. There are riots, and everything else going 
     on.'' And he said: ``Don't tell anybody, but I got hold of 
     Governor Adlai Stevenson.'' Stevenson was the governor of 
     Illinois at the time. And he said: ``I sent that family back 
     to Mississippi for safe keeping.'' And Thurgood added, ``for 
     God's sake, don't tell anybody that or it will ruin me.'' I 
     said: ``for God's sake, don't tell anybody I'm eating 
     breakfast with you, or I will never get elected again.''
       I tell you that story so you can get a feel for 1952, for 
     what it was like 50 years ago.
       We had wanted Briggs to be the lead case before the Supreme 
     Court. It was one of five cases that they would hear 
     collectively. But soon after our breakfast, we found out that 
     Roy Wilkens from the NAACP had gotten together with the 
     Solicitor General and moved the Kansas case in front of the 
     South Carolina case. Some reports said the reason was because 
     they wanted a northern case. That was not it. There was 
     another case from the State of Delaware, which was just as 
     north as the State of Kansas.
       Kansas was selected because up until the sixth grade, yes, 
     it was segregated. But thereafter it was a local option, and 
     the schools were mostly integrated.
       Before the court John W. Davis obviously made a very 
     impassioned, constitutional argument. But Thurgood Marshall 
     made the real argument, there wasn't any question about it. 
     He had been with this case. He had the feel, and everything 
     else of that kind.
       I can still hear and see Justice Frankfurter on the Court 
     leaning over and saying, ``Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marshall, you've 
     won your case, you've won your case. What happens next''? And 
     Thurgood Marshall said, well, if he prevails, then the state 
     imposed policy of separation by race would be removed. The 
     little children can go to the school of their choice. They 
     play together before they go to school. They come back and 
     play together after school. Now they can be together at 
     school. The State imposed policy of separation by race in 
     South Carolina would be gone.
       Another lawyer arguing the case was George E. C. Hayes, and 
     when I heard him that was my epiphany. Mr. Hayes got everyone 
     because he used a jury argument before

[[Page S5540]]

     the Supreme Court. He said: as black soldiers we went to the 
     war to fight on the front lines in Europe, and when we come 
     home we have to sit on the back of the bus.
       I had been with the 9th Anti-Artillery Aircraft unit in 
     Tunisia in Africa for a month. And then I was in Italy and 
     Germany and crossed over to what is now Kosovo. So I served. 
     I knew exactly what he was talking about. And I said this is 
     wrong.
       The next year Chief Justice Vinson died. It was reported at 
     that time that Justice Frankfurter said for the first time 
     that he believed there was a God in Heaven when Vison passed 
     away. They appointed Mr. Earl Warren as Chief Justice, who 
     dragged everybody back to the Court to re-argue the case in 
     December of 1953. He didn't want to hear about separate but 
     equal. He wanted the case re-argued on the constitutionality 
     of segregation itself.
       Then on May 17, 1953 the decision came down, it was 
     unanimous, segregation was over in this country. So the 
     lawyers immediately got together to discuss how to implement 
     the decision. Since the decision said to integrate schools 
     with all deliberate speed, there was arguments back and forth 
     on how we could comply with this order with all deliberate 
     speed and not start chaos all over the land.
       Some school authority down in Charleston came up with the 
     idea that with all deliberate speed meant we would integrate 
     the first grade the first year; we would integrate the first 
     and second grades the second year; the third year would be 
     the first, second, and third grades. Over a 12-year period, 
     we would then have the 12 grades integrated. When the head of 
     the NAACP in New York heard that he said: ``Noooo Way. We are 
     not going to be given our constitutional rights on the 
     installment plan.'' And that ended that. But nothing was done 
     for about 10 years, until Martin Luther King came along.
       When I became Governor, I started working on other areas 
     that needed to be integrated, beginning with law enforcement. 
     I'll never forget all the white sheriffs who were against all 
     the blacks. We only had 34 black sheriffs. We have about 500 
     today.
       And we literally broke up and locked up the Ku Klux Klan. I 
     remember on the day I was sworn in as Governor, waiting for 
     me was a green and gold embossed envelope, with a lifetime 
     membership into the Ku Klux Klan. I never heard of such a 
     thing. I asked the head of law enforcement, do we have the Ku 
     Klux Klan in South Carolina? He said, ``Ohhh yes. We have 
     1,727 members.'' I asked, you have an actual count? And he 
     said: ``Ohhh yes, we keep a count of them.'' He said he could 
     get rid of them, but no Governor had helped him in the past. 
     I said, I'll help you. What do we do? He said: ``I need a 
     little money.''
       So we infiltrated the Klan, and the members began to know, 
     or their bosses at businesses knew because they would say to 
     these people: ``You know on Friday night, your man, so and 
     so, has been going to these rallies.'' The next thing you 
     know, they quit going to the rallies. So by the time we 
     integrated Clemson with Harvey Gantt, it went very, very 
     peacefully. And there were less than 300 Klansmen.
       Then, of course, as Senator I took my hunger trips. This is 
     the effect those arguments before the court had on me. I took 
     those trips with the NAACP to 16 different counties. As a 
     result, we embellished the food stamp program, we instituted 
     the women infants and children's feeding program, and the 
     school lunch program. The attendance in schools went way up 
     when we started that.
       As your Senator I had the privilege of employing Ralph 
     Everett. He was the first black staff director of any 
     committee in the United States Senate.
       We have both Andy Chishom and Israel Brooks as the first 
     black Marshalls of South Carolina. Matthew Perry, the first 
     black district judge of a Federal court ever appointed, I 
     appointed. The first black woman judge to the Federal 
     district court, Margaret Seymour, I appointed her. So we have 
     made a lot of progress along that line.
       But to give you a feel for how things have changed, I 
     remember speaking at the C.A. Johnson High School in 
     Columbia, the largest black high school in the entire state, 
     the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated.
       At the event, there was a mid-shipman, a senior at the 
     Naval Academy, who stood up and made one of the finest talks 
     I ever heard. I turned to the principal, because it was his 
     son, and I asked: who appointed your son to the Naval 
     Academy? He didn't answer. We walked down the row, and I can 
     see me now, asking him again. He still didn't answer. When I 
     got to my car, I said evidently you don't understand my 
     accent from Charleston. Who appointed your son to the U.S. 
     Naval Academy? He said, ``Senator, I didn't want to have to 
     answer that question. We couldn't get a member of the South 
     Carolina delegation to appoint him. Hubert Humphrey appointed 
     him.''
       What goes around, comes around. Today, I have more minority 
     appointments to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force 
     Academies than anybody. Recently I had Chuck Bolden, who is a 
     major general in the marine corps and a former astronaut, 
     ready to return to NASA as the number two person there. But 
     the Pentagon raised the question about taking such a talent 
     during a time of war and moving him to the civilian space 
     program. So we said the heck with it, he's too needed in the 
     military.
       That is the effect Briggs v. Elliott had on this public 
     servant. There isn't any question that without the courage of 
     your parents, our society would be a lot worse off today.
       I was there a few years back when the Congress of the 
     United gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. She 
     deserved it, and we wouldn't take anything from her for not 
     moving her seat. But in the 1950s the worst they could have 
     done to her was to pull her off the bus. These descendants 
     lost their homes. They lost their livelihoods. They almost 
     lost their lives. As far as continuing their life in the 
     State of South Carolina, they could not do it.
       Without their courage, without their stamina, without their 
     example in starting the Briggs v. Elliott case, we never 
     would have had a civil rights act. We never would have had a 
     voting rights act. We never would have had all the progress 
     we've made over the many, many years.
       So I wanted particularly to come back and to publicly thank 
     each of you descendants. And I want to announce that I am 
     putting forward a bill that would honor posthumously Rev. De 
     Laine with a Congressional Gold Medal.
       I need 66 co-sponsors in the Senate. We have to have 
     similar support on the House side. But Cong. Clyburn, he can 
     get way more votes than I can. I don't think he'll have any 
     trouble. We'll try to work it out so that in '04, the 50th 
     anniversary of when the decision came down, we'll be able to 
     make that presentation.
       I just want to end by saying because of the courage of your 
     parents, we made far more progress in the United States of 
     America. Our country is a far stronger country. We are more 
     than ever the land of the free and the home of the brave 
     because of Briggs v. Elliott. And I thank you all very, very 
     much.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 2623. A bill to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle 
Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National 
Park System, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President I am pleased to introduce legislation, 
along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to create the Cedar Creek 
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park.
  This legislation builds on an effort that I have been involved with 
for over a decade. In 1991, the Congress authorized the National Park 
Service to conduct an assessment of the historical integrity of 
significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of 
Virginia. That examination identified 10 Civil War battlefields in 
eight counties in the Valley that remained significantly as they were 
during the war.
  The Valley itself was a location of constant engagements throughout 
the War with more than 325 armed conflicts. The 10 battlefields that 
are today preserved under the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields 
Management Plan include the places of Stonewall Jackson's 1862 
campaign, and later Union General Philip Sheridan's 1864 campaign which 
left the Valley in ruins.
  This legislation is the product of many months of discussions with 
affected individual property owners with the battlefield boundary, our 
partner non-profit organizations who today preserve Belle Grove 
Plantation and surrounding lands within the battlefield, local 
governments and many interested citizens. I am pleased to present to 
the Senate their strong support for this legislation. I know that with 
retaining the private sector ownership of buildings and their direct 
participation in preserving and interpreting the story of Cedar Creek, 
we will have a truly unique partnership.
  The compelling story of the events that unfolded at Cedar Creek 
surely earns recognition within our National Park system. In October of 
1864, the Federal Army of the Shenandoah, having soundly defeated the 
Confederate Army of the Valley at Winchester on September 19 and then 
again at Fisher's Hill on September 22, ran the Confederate forces out 
of the Shenandoah Valley. In the process of this Union advance, Federal 
forces either burned or took all of the Confederate food reserves and 
livestock between Staunton and Strasburg. Thinking he had finally 
deprived the Valley as the Confederate's food source and as an invasion 
route North, Major General Philip Sheridan left his army camped along 
Cedar Creek at Middletown and went to Washington to have meetings with 
his supporters.
  Refusing to give up the Valley to the Federals, General Jubal Early 
moved his very hungry, tired, and ill-equipped army of about 17,000 to 
Fisher's Hill on October 13. Facing down Sheridan's

[[Page S5541]]

well dug-in army of over 30,000 men, Early had to make a decision to 
attack or retreat. He chose to attack. On the night of October 18, he 
sent three of his divisions under the command of Major General John 
Gordon across the Shenandoah River and along the flank of Massanutten 
Mountain to hit the Federal position from the east, behind its 
entrenchments along Cedar Creek.
  After marching and maneuvering all night, Gordon's divisions struck 
at dawn in a thick fog. The Federals were clearly surprised. Early 
pushed the Federals all the way out of their camps, past Belle Grove 
plantation and all the way through Middleton. At mid-day, Gordon 
ordered a halt to the advance so that he could regroup his forces.
  Being informed that there was a battle going on, Sheridan rushed to 
Middletown from Winchester. Once he arrived there in the afternoon, he 
found his army posted along a ridge north of Middletown. There he was 
able to rally his men, and from the position he ordered a massive 
counterattack. The counterattack completely swept the Confederates from 
the field.
  The battle of Cedar Creek was significant for many reasons. The 
battle dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah 
Valley, thus ending the career of Jubal Early in the process. Most 
importantly, however, coupled with the successes of General William T. 
Sherman in the Atlanta campaign, the battle boosted the morale of the 
war-weary North and guaranteed the re-election of President Abraham 
Lincoln.
  The untouched landscape of this battlefield and the historic 
structure of Belle Grove plantation still today evoke the stories of 
the war. This site will serve to tell the whole story of the campaigns 
of the Valley and visitors will experience the full impact of the War 
of these surrounding rural communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2623

       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 ``Cedar Creek Battlefield and 
     Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical 
     Park in order to--
       (1) help preserve, protect, and interpret a nationally 
     significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation for 
     the education, inspiration, and benefit of present and future 
     generations;
       (2) serve as a focal point to recognize and interpret 
     important events and geographic locations representing key 
     Civil War battles in the Shenandoah Valley, including those 
     battlefields associated with the Thomas J. (stonewall) 
     Jackson campaign of 862 and the decisive campaigns of 1864;
       (3) tell the rich story of the Battle of Cedar Creek and 
     its significance in the conduct of the war in the Shenandoah 
     Valley; and
       (4) preserve the significant historic, natural, cultural, 
     military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas through 
     partnerships with local landowners and the community.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the battle of 
     Belle Grove, was a major event of the Civil War and the 
     history of this country. It represented the end of the Civil 
     War's Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864 and contributed to 
     the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln and the eventual 
     outcome of the war.
       (2) 2,500 acres of the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle 
     Grove Plantation were designated a national historic landmark 
     in 1969 because of their ability to illustrate and interpret 
     important eras and events in the history of the United 
     States. The Cedar Creek Battlefield, Belle Grove Manor House, 
     the Heater House, and Harmony Hall (a National Historic 
     Landmark) are also listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register.
       (3) The Secretary of the Interior has approved the 
     Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District 
     Management Plan, September 2000, which preserves the 
     District's historic character, and protects and interprets 10 
     significant Civil War battlefields within the District, 
     including the Cedar Creek battlefield.
       (4) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic 
     District Management Plan and the National Park Service 
     Special Resource Study recognize the Cedar Creek battlefield 
     as the most significant Civil War resource within the 
     Historic District.
       (5) The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic 
     District Management Plan, which was developed with extensive 
     public participation over a 3-year period and is administered 
     by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, recommends 
     that Cedar Creek Battlefield be established as a new unit of 
     the National Park System to provide permanent protection for 
     the battlefield and to serve as the central site to increase 
     the public's education and awareness of the War's legacy 
     throughout the Historic District.
       (6) The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, organized in 
     1988 to preserve and interpret the Cedar Creek Battlefield 
     and the 1864 Valley Campaign, has acquired 308 acres of land 
     within the boundaries of the National Historic Landmark. The 
     foundation annually hosts a major reenactment and living 
     history event on the Cedar Creek Battlefield.
       (7) Belle Grove Plantation is a Historic Site of the 
     National Trust for Historic Preservation that occupies 383 
     acres within the National Historic Landmark. The Belle Grove 
     Manor House was built by Isaac Hite, a Revolutionary War 
     patriot married to the sister of President James Madison, who 
     was a frequent visitor at Belle Grove. President Thomas 
     Jefferson assisted with the design of the house. During the 
     Civil War Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive 
     battle of Cedar Creek. Belle Grove is managed locally by 
     Belle Grove, Incorporated, and has been open to the public 
     since 1967. The house has remained virtually unchanged since 
     it was built in 1797, offering visitors an experience of the 
     life and times of the people who lived there in the 18th and 
     19th centuries.
       (8) The panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, 
     and waterways provide visitors with an inspiring setting of 
     great natural beauty. The historic, natural, cultural, 
     military, and scenic resources found in the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation areas are nationally 
     and regionally significant.
       (9) The existing, independent, not-for-profit organizations 
     dedicated to the protection and interpretation of the 
     resources described above provide the foundation for public-
     private partnerships to further the success of protecting, 
     preserving, and interpreting these resources.
       (10) None of these resources, sites, or stories of the 
     Shenandoah Valley are protected by or interpreted within the 
     National Park System.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Cedar 
     Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National 
     Historical Park Advisory Commission established by section 9.
       (2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Cedar 
     Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National 
     Historic Park'', numbered CECR-80,000, and dated June 12, 
     2002.
       (3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical 
     Park established under section 5 and depicted on the Map.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE 
                   GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical 
     Park, consisting of approximately 3,000 acres, as generally 
     depicted on the Map.
       (b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land or 
     interests in land within the boundaries of the park, from 
     willing sellers only, by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange.
       (b) Boundary revision.--After acquiring land for the Park, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) revise the boundary map of the Park to include newly 
     acquired land within the boundary; and
       (2) administer newly acquired land subject to applicable 
     laws (including regulations).
       (c) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal 
     property associated with, and appropriate for, interpretation 
     of the Park.
       (d) Conservation Easements and Covenants.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to acquire conservation easements and enter into 
     covenants regarding lads in or adjacent to the Park for 
     willing sellers only. Such conservation easements and 
     covenants shall have the effect of protecting the scenic, 
     natural, and historic resources on adjacent lands and 
     preserving the natural or historic setting of the Park when 
     viewed from within or outside the Park.
       (e) Support Facilities.--The National Park Service is 
     authorized to acquire from willing sellers up to 50 acres of 
     land outside the park boundary, but in close proximity to the 
     park, to develop facilities for one or more of the following:
       (1) Visitors.
       (2) Administrative functions.
       (3) Museums.
       (4) Curatorial functions.
       (5) Maintenance.

[[Page S5542]]

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary shall administer the Park in accordance with 
     this Act and the provisions of law generally applicable to 
     units of the National Park System, including--
       (1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
       (2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, 
     and antiquities of national significance, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

     SEC. 8. MANAGEMENT OF PARK.

       (a) Management Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Commission, shall prepare a management plan for the Park. 
     In particular, the management plan shall contain provisions 
     to address the needs of owners of non-Federal land, including 
     independent nonprofit organizations within the boundaries of 
     the Park.
       (b) Submission of Plan to Congress.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit the management plan for the Park to Congress.

     SEC. 9. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION 
                   NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield and Belle Grove Planation National Historical 
     Park Advisory Commission.
       (b) Duties.--The Commission shall--
       (1) advise the Secretary in the preparation and 
     implementation of a general management plan described in 
     section 8; and
       (2) advise the Secretary with respect to the identification 
     of sites of significance outside the Park boundary deemed 
     necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members appointed by the Secretary so as to include the 
     following:
       (A) 1 representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
       (B) 1 representative each from the local governments of 
     Strasburg, Middletown, Frederick County, Shenandoah County, 
     and Warren County.
       (C) 2 representatives of private landowners within the 
     Park.
       (D) 1 representative from a citizen interest group.
       (E) 1 representative from the Cedar Creek Battlefield 
     Foundation.
       (F) 1 representative from Belle Grove, Incorporated.
       (G) 1 representative from the National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation.
       (H) 1 representative from the Shenandoah Valley 
     Battlefields Foundation.
       (I) 1 ex officio representative from the National Park 
     Service.
       (J) 1 ex officio representative from the United States 
     Forest Service.
       (2) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be elected by the members to serve a term of one year 
     renewable for one additional year.
       (3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filed 
     in the same manner in which the original appointment was 
     made.
       (4) Terms of service.--
       (A) In General.--Each member shall be appointed for a term 
     of 3 years and may be reappointed for not more than 2 
     successive terms.
       (B) Initial members.--Of the members first appointed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall appoint--
       (i) 4 members for a term of 1 year;
       (ii) 5 members for a term of 2 years; and
       (iii) 6 members for a term of 3 years.
       (5) Extended service.--A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken 
     office.
       (6) Majority rule.--The Commission shall act and advise by 
     affirmative vote of a majority of its members.
       (7) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly 
     at the call of the chairperson or a majority of the members 
     of the Commission.
       (8) Quorum.--8 members shall constitute a quorum.
       (d) Compensation.--Members shall serve without pay. Members 
     who are full-time officers or employees of the United States, 
     the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any political subdivision 
     thereof shall receive no additional pay on account of their 
     service on the Commission.
       (e) Hearings; Public Involvement.--The Commission may, for 
     purposes of carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such public testimony, 
     and receive such evidence, as the Commission considers 
     appropriate. The Commission may not issue subpoenas or 
     exercise any subpoena authority.
       (f) FACA Nonapplicability.--The Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act shall not apply to the Commission.

     SEC. 10. CONSERVATION OF CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE 
                   GROVE PLANTATION NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

       (a) Encouragement of Conservation.--The Secretary and the 
     Commission shall encourage conservation of the historic and 
     natural resources within and in proximity of the Park by 
     landowners, local governments, organizations, and businesses.
       (b) Provision of Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may 
     provide technical assistance to local governments, in 
     cooperative efforts which complement the values of the Park.
       (c) Cooperation by Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity 
     conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the 
     Park shall consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, coordinate its activities with the Secretary in 
     a manner that--
       (1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act and the 
     standards and criteria established pursuant to the general 
     management plan developed pursuant to section 8;
       (2) is not likely to have an adverse effect on the 
     resources of the Park; and
       (3) is likely to provide for full public participation in 
     order to consider the views of all interested parties.

     SEC. 11. ENDOWMENT.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of 
     subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to receive and 
     expend funds from an endowment to be established with the 
     National Park Foundation, or its successors and assigns.
       (b) Conditions.--Funds from the endowment referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be expended exclusively as the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, may designate 
     for the interpretation, preservation, and maintenance of the 
     Park resources and public access areas. No expenditure shall 
     be made pursuant to this section unless the Secretary 
     determines that such an expenditure is consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 12. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

       (a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of this 
     Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative 
     agreements with interested public and private entities and 
     individuals (including the National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation, Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield 
     Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, 
     and the Counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren), 
     through technical and financial assistance, including 
     encouraging the conservation of historic and natural 
     resources within and near the Park.
       (b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may 
     provide to any person, organization, or governmental entity 
     technical and financial assistance for the purposes of 
     this Act, including the following:
       (1) Preserving historic structures within the Park.
       (2) Maintaining the natural or cultural landscape of the 
     Park.
       (3) Local preservation planning, interpretation, and 
     management of public visitation for the Park.
       (4) Furthering the goals of the Shenandoah Valley 
     Battlefields Foundation and National Historic District 
     Management Plan.

     SEC. 13. ROLES OF KEY PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In recognition that central portions of 
     the Park are presently owned and operated for the benefit of 
     the public by key partner organizations, the Secretary shall 
     acknowledge and support the continued participation of these 
     partner organizations in the management of the Park.
       (b) Park Partners.--Roles of the current key partners 
     include the following:
       (1) Cedar creek battlefield foundation.--The Cedar Creek 
     Battlefield Foundation may--
       (A) continue to own, operate, and manage the lands acquired 
     by the Foundation within the Park;
       (B) continue to conduct reenactments and other events 
     within the Park; and
       (C) transfer ownership interest in portions of their land 
     to the National Park Service by donation, sale, or other 
     means that meet the legal requirements of National Park 
     Service land acquisitions.
       (2) National trust for historic preservation and belle 
     grove incorporated.--The National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation and Belle Grove Incorporated may continue to 
     own, operate, and manage Belle Grove Plantation and its 
     structures and grounds within the Park boundary. Belle Grove 
     Incorporated may continue to own the house and grounds known 
     as Bowman's Fort or Harmony Hall for the purpose of permanent 
     preservation, with a long-term goal of opening the property 
     to the public.
       (3) Shenandoah county.--Shenandoah County may continue to 
     own, operate, and manage the Keister park site within the 
     Park for the benefit of the public.
       (4) Gateway communities.--The adjacent historic towns of 
     Strasburg and Middletown shall be acknowledged at Gateway 
     Communities to the Park.
       (5) Shenandoah valley battlefields foundation.--The 
     Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation may continue to 
     administer and manage the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields 
     National Historic District in partnership with the National 
     Park Service and in accordance with the Management Plan for 
     the District in which the Park is located.

     SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

[[Page S5543]]

     

                          ____________________