[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6805-6809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 826. A bill to limit the acquisition by the United States of land 
located in a State in which 25 percent or more of the land in that 
State is owned by the United States; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                    NO NET LOSS OF PRIVATE LANDS ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is really the ``No-Net-Gain'' bill 
that we have talked about before. The regulation is a commonsense 
proposal that will limit additional Federal land acquisition in public 
land States. The Federal Government continues to acquire more land 
throughout the Nation in every State of the Union, and folks are saying 
we have to take a new look at the growth of the Federal Government and 
begin to protect private property rights. This, however, only applies 
to States in which 25 percent or more of the State now belongs to the 
Federal Government. So, as you can imagine, the acquisition of 
additional lands is especially a problem for those of us living in the 
West.
  Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned 
by the Federal Government. In some States it is as high as 87 percent--
in Nevada. In Colorado, the home State of the Presiding Officer, it is 
higher than 50 percent. This bill deals with that sort of phenomenon. 
As you probably know, in the past, of course, much land was set aside 
in parks and forests. They were reserve lands. And I support that. I am 
glad they are set aside. These are national treasures and we want to 
keep them.
  Much of the land, of course, was then put into private ownership 
through the Homestead Act. When that was concluded, there were still 
lands there that were left afterwards, and they were taken and are now 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These were not lands that 
were ever reserved; these were lands that were simply left over when 
the Homestead Act was completed.
  So they, too, are managed for many uses and are important. This bill 
in no way asks these total lands be reduced. We are simply saying 
whenever there is an acquisition made for something that

[[Page 6806]]

is useful--and it does allow the Federal Government to do that, of 
course--that an equal value of land, Federal land, be sent back into 
private ownership.
  The Federal Government, of course, makes it a little more difficult 
sometimes in the States to have multiple use, to use them, to set them 
aside, to manage the environment, but at the same time have economic 
activities, to have mining, to have oil, to have timber, to have 
grazing. These are the things, of course, that are the lifeblood to the 
Western States. This creates often a hardship for the local economies; 
and it depresses the economy.
  The Clinton administration, I think, has been particularly difficult 
in the way it has handled some of the public lands. The latest 
proposal, the Lands Legacy Initiative, is an example of a rather 
expansive acquisition of Federal lands. Again I say I have no objection 
to the maintaining of lands that have a special character, that have a 
special need, to be reserved into public ownership. All we say is, if 
you are going to do that, then release an equal value amount of lands 
back into private ownership. Many of us are very concerned about the 
Lands Legacy Initiative, that it will again impede the private 
ownership, which, of course, is a very basic thing to this whole 
country.
  I think the time has come to put some kind of a bridle on the 
insatiable appetite for additional land in the western part of the 
United States. The No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act is, I think, a 
reasonable approach to an ever-increasing growth of Federal land 
ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an 
equal value of land when it acquires property in the States that are at 
least 25 percent federally owned.
  The property would be released at the same time of the new 
acquisition and could be any type of Federal lands. In addition, the 
legislation would provide a provision waiving the disposal requirement 
in time of national emergency or war.
  While in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate, I have 
worked extensively to protect unique public lands, such as national 
parks. I served as chairman of the National Parks Committee. I think 
there is nothing more important to us, in terms of preserving natural 
resources and cultural resources.
  In fact, we passed a rather extensive bill called Vision 20/20 last 
year that does this. It helps to strengthen national parks. When I grew 
up, my parents' ranch bordered the Shoshone National Forest, so I feel 
very strongly about forests and that they should be there, but I do 
believe there needs to be some equality between the private ownership 
and Federal ownership. So it is time for the Congress to protect the 
rights of private owners and to instill some common sense and restraint 
in the further acquisition and growth of Federal lands. That is what 
this bill is designed to do. And I indicate the cosponsorship of 
Senator Kyl and Senator Helms.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 827. A bill to establish drawback for imports of N-cyclohexyl-2-
benzothiazolesulfenamide based on exports of N-tert-Butyl-2-
benzothiazolesulfenamide; to the Committee on Finance.


                DUTY DRAWBACK ON IMPORTS OF CBS AND TBBS

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would establish the authority to provide a duty drawback on imports of 
two commercially interchangeable rubber vulcanization accelerators 
known commonly as CBS and TBBS.
  CBS and TBBS are the major primary accelerators used in the 
production of tires and other rubber products. Both CBS and TBBS belong 
to the same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization chemicals, and 
can be used interchangeably with one another to perform the same 
function and to achieve the same end results. They can be manufactured 
by similar industrial processes using the same raw materials and 
identical process steps; and for all practical purposes, it is not 
possible to tell if CBS or TBBS were used in the final rubber product. 
In short, the two chemicals are commercially interchangeable in both 
function and use, and therefore, I believe they meet the specified 
circumstances required under Section 202 of U.S. trade law to receive 
duty drawback benefits based on a substitution basis.
  More specifically, this bill is extremely important to a West 
Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces both CBS and TBBS, and employs 
230 West Virginians with an average annual salary of $42,000. Passage 
of this bill will preserve these jobs in an increasingly competitive 
chemical market, and will permit American-made products to compete more 
effectively in world markets.
  Because of the competitive nature of the chemical business, American 
companies must constantly look for new opportunities to improve 
efficiency, strengthen U.S. operations and cost position, and provide 
benefits to their customers. I believe the Congress had these goals in 
mind when we passed the duty drawback provisions in the Customs 
Modification Act of 1993. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under 
the duty drawback provision that two products must be ``commercially 
interchangeable'' to claim a drawback credit, and I urge my colleagues 
to adopt this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 827

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRAWBACK BASED ON COMMERCIAL 
                   INTERCHANGEABILITY FOR CERTAIN RUBBER 
                   VULCANIZATION ACCELERATORS.

       (a) In General.--The United States Customs Service shall 
     treat the chemical N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide 
     and the chemical N-tert-Butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide as 
     ``commercially interchangeable'' within the meaning of 
     section 313(j)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1313(j)(2)) for purposes of permitting drawback under section 
     313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313).
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect 
     to any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, 
     of the chemical N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide 
     before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act, that 
     is eligible for drawback within the time period provided in 
     section 313(j)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1313(j)(2)(B)).

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as an original 
cosponsor of the bill introduced by Senator Rockefeller that would 
provide the necessary authority to implement the trade drawback 
allowance based on the commercially interchangeable feature of two 
rubber vulcanization accelerators.
  These two chemicals, commonly referred to as CBS and TBBS, are one-
and-the-same for all practical purposes. CBS and TBBS belong to the 
same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization accelerator chemicals; 
they can be manufactured by similar industrial processes using the same 
active ingredients and identical process steps; and they generally 
cannot be distinguished by informed analysts once used in the finished 
rubber product. In short, CBS and TBBS are commercially interchangeable 
in function and use--the specified circumstances required under Section 
202 of U.S. trade law to receive duty drawback benefits on a 
substitution basis.
  By establishing the commercial interchangeability for CBS and TBBS, 
duty drawback law can be implemented. Under duty drawback law, a 
company would receive a refund of import duties--called a duty 
drawback--paid by that company on its imports of CBS, based on the 
exports of the company's production of TBBS, or vice-versa. In other 
words, for every ton of TBBS that a company exports out of the United 
States, the company would receive a refund of duties that it paid on a 
ton of CBS that was imported into the United States. A drawback 
allowance on the commercially interchangeable standard is granted on a 
case-by-case authorization. The bill I join Senator Rockefeller in 
cosponsoring would simply provide the commercially interchangeable CBS 
and TBBS chemicals with the necessary authorization required by law.

[[Page 6807]]

  This bill is vital to a West Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces 
both CBS and TBBS. Flexsys provides 230 jobs in West Virginia with an 
average annual salary of $42,000. Without the duty drawback, these jobs 
are at risk due to the increasingly competitive chemical market. The 
purpose of the drawback statutes is to permit American-made products to 
compete more effectively in world markets. The Congress adopted 
drawback provisions recognizing that U.S. manufacturers need the 
authority to enable them to select the most advantageous production 
methods. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under drawback law, and 
my review of Flexsys has convinced me that it is the type of company 
that was in mind when this Body approved the drawback statutes.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support our effort to aid 
hardworking Americans through passage of this bill. Enactment of this 
bill would fulfill the purpose of drawback law by advancing the 
continued operations at Flexsys and, as a result, the utilization of 
American labor and capital.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 828. A bill for the relief of Corina Dechalup; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a private bill 
for the relief of Corina Dechalup of France. My bill would grant 
permanent resident status to Corina, affording her the legal security 
she needs to rebuild her life in this country.
  Corina Dechalup first arrived in the United States from France in 
February 1990. She was admitted under the visa waiver pilot program 
after her then-fiancee Marin Turcinovic of Croatia was injured. 
Admitted on an H-1 visa in January 1990, Marin was hit by a car in 
Fairview, New Jersey in February 1990. Both of his legs were shattered. 
His spinal cord was severed, leaving him paralyzed below the neck. He 
will probably never walk again. Both Marin and Corina have been in the 
United States since their initial entries.
  Corina and Marin married in February 1996, six years after his 
accident. Corina is an essential part of Marin's life. She has been 
with Marin throughout his ordeal and has been instrumental in 
coordinating his medical care. She has directly provided care for 
Marin, and he could never have reached the degree of recovery he now 
enjoys without her support.
  Marin requires 24-hour medical care for his survival. An insurance 
settlement from litigation filed after the accident provides Marin with 
lifetime medical and rehabilitative care. Marin and Corina currently 
live in a specially modified house located in the Beverly community of 
Chicago. According to Marin's lawyers, the insurance settlement that 
provides for Marin's lifetime shelter and medical care would not cover 
him at another location.
  Marin was granted permanent resident status on September 30, 1998, 
pursuant to former section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
Though he can now file a petition requesting permanent resident status 
for Corina, she will still face a four to five year wait. Because she 
entered the U.S. under the visa waiver pilot program, she was subject 
to an order of deportation, without the right to an administrative 
hearing, once she overstayed her 90-day authorized admission in 
February 1990. Since 1994, she has received a stay of deportation in 
one year increments. She cannot currently travel to see her family in 
France, and she has no assurance that her stay will be renewed from one 
year to the next.
  Before arriving in the U.S., Corina, a university graduate, worked as 
a tour guide for a Yugoslavian tourist agency. Although her days are 
primarily devoted to Marin, she has the skills and desire to find part-
time employment and would like to obtain authorization to work.
  Mr. President, nine years ago, fate tragically changed forever the 
lives of Corina Dechalup of France and her husband Marin Turcinovic of 
Croatia. A terrible accident in the United States left Marin 
permanently injured, making his return home impossible. Fortunately for 
Marin, he had the love and support of Corina, who left her home and her 
family to devote her life to him. Given the tremendous adversity that 
she faces on a day-to-day basis, I believe it appropriate for Congress 
to grant her permanent resident status. Such status would clear up much 
of the uncertainty that currently clouds her future, and would allow 
Corina and her husband to rebuild their lives in our country with 
confidence.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 828

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Corina Dechalup shall be held and considered to have been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
     payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Corina 
     Dechalup, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State 
     shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the 
     appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total 
     number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country 
     of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 829. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Searsport 
Harbor, Searsport, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


          DEAUTHORIZATION AND REALIGNMENT OF SEARSPORT HARBOR

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 830. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Carvers 
Harbor, Vinalhaven, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


           DEAUTHORIZATION AND REALIGNMENT OF CARVERS HARBOR

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills 
that call for the deauthorization and realignment of harbor boundaries 
in Searsport, Maine and for Carvers Harbor on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. 
Passage of these bills will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
issue permits to the Maine Department of Transportation for projects 
that are vital to the economic well being of the town of Searsport and 
the island of Vinalhaven.
  The first bill addresses the deauthorization and realignment of the 
navigation channel in Searsport Harbor so that the existing cargo pier 
can be replaced. The bill will allow a multimillion dollar improvement 
to be made to the Mack Point cargo port at the earliest possible date. 
In addition, a second cargo pier will be rehabilitated. The work will 
include new dolphin structures, which will encroach upon the existing 
Federal channel. The navigation project was authorized by the River and 
Harbor Act of October 23, 1962.
  The second bill deauthorize and realigns Carvers Harbor in Vinalhaven 
so as to allow the construction of a new ferry terminal to replace the 
existing pier facility that is located within the established Army 
Corps of Engineers anchorage. The deauthorization will allow the ferry 
terminal project to remain on schedule and occur at the earliest 
possible date. The year round population of the island is comprised 
primarily of lobster fishermen and the businesses that support that 
industry. This navigation project was authorized by the River and 
Harbor Act of June 3, 1896.
  Along with my support, both projects have the blessing of the 
respective towns and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am also 
working with Senator Chafee in the hopes of having these two harbor 
deauthorizations included in the Managers amendment for the Water 
Resources Development Act, which has already passed out of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and is expected to be taken up 
by the full Senate shortly.

[[Page 6808]]

  I urge the support of my colleagues for these two 
deauthorizations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 831. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to set 
aside up to $2 per person from park entrance fees or assess up to $2 
per person visiting the Grand Canyon or other national parks to secure 
bonds for capital improvements to the park, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


            NATIONAL PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am renewing my efforts to provide 
innovative solutions to address urgently needed repairs and 
enhancements at our nation's parks. The legislation I am introducing 
today is nearly identical to the bill I sponsored in the 105th 
Congress, which received substantial support from many of the 
organizations supporting the National Parks system. I am pleased that 
Representative Kolbe will introduce companion legislation in the House.
  The National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 1999 would help secure 
taxable revenue bonding authority for National Parks. This legislation 
would allow private fundraising organizations to enter into agreements 
with the Secretary of Interior to issue taxable capital development 
bonds. Bond revenues would then be used to finance park improvement 
projects. The bonds would be secured by an entrance fee surcharge of up 
to $2 per visitor at participating parks, or a set-aside of up to $2 
per visitor from current entrance fees.
  Our national park system has enormous capital needs--by last 
estimate, over $3 billion for high-priority projects such as improved 
transportation systems, trail repairs, visitor facilities, historic 
preservation, and the list goes on and on. The unfortunate reality is 
that even under the rosiest budget scenarios, our growing park needs 
far outstrip the resources currently available. Parks are still 
struggling to address enormous resource and infrastructure needs while 
seeking to improve the park experience to accommodate the increasing 
numbers of visitors to recreation sites.
  Revenue bonding would take us a long way toward meeting our needs 
within the national park system. For example, based on current 
visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to 
raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a 
significant amount of money which we could use to accomplish many 
critical park projects.
  Let me emphasize, however, the Grand Canyon National Park would not 
be the only park eligible to benefit from this legislation. Any park 
unit with capital needs in excess of $5 million is eligible to 
participate. Among eligible parks, the Secretary of Interior will 
determine which may take part in the program.
  I also want to stress that only projects approved as part of a park's 
general management plan can be funded through bond revenue. This 
proviso eliminates any concern that the revenue could be used for 
projects of questionable value to the park.
  In addition, only organizations under agreement with the Secretary of 
Interior will be authorized to administer the bonding, so the Secretary 
can establish any rules or policies he deems necessary and appropriate.
  Under no circumstances, however, would investors be able to attach 
liens against Federal property in the very unlikely event of default. 
The bonds will be secured only by the surcharge revenues.
  Finally, the bill specifies that all professional standards apply and 
that the issues are subject to the same laws, rules, and regulatory 
enforcement procedures as any other bond issue.
  The most obvious question raised by this legislation is: Will the 
bond markets support park improvement issues, guaranteed by an entrance 
surcharge? The answer is an emphatic yes. Bonding is a well-tested tool 
for the private sector. Additionally, Americans are eager to invest in 
our Nation's natural heritage, and with park visitation growing 
stronger, the risks appear minimal.
  Are park visitors willing to pay a little more at the entrance gate 
if the money is used for park improvements? Again, I believe the answer 
is yes. Time and time again, visitors have expressed their support for 
increased fees provided that the revenue is used where collected and 
not diverted for some other purpose devised by Congress. The National 
Park Service conducted a survey last year which indicated that nearly 
83 percent of participating respondents were satisfied with their paid 
fees, or thought the fees too low.
  With the fee demonstration program currently being implemented at 
parks around the Nation, an additional $2 surcharge may not be 
necessary or appropriate at certain parks. Under the bill, those parks 
could choose to dedicate $2 per park visitor from current entrance fees 
toward a bond issue. The latest figures from the National Park Service 
indicate that revenues from fees doubled in 1998 to $180 million. This 
legislation can easily complement the recreational fee program to 
increase benefits to support our parks and increase the quality of 
America's park experience well into the future.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and National Parks 
supporters to ensure passage of this legislation.
  Mr. President, 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. 831

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Parks Capital Improvements Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Fundraising organization.
Sec. 4. Memorandum of agreement.
Sec. 5. National park surcharge or set-aside.
Sec. 6. Use of bond proceeds.
Sec. 7. Administration.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Fundraising organization.--The term ``fundraising 
     organization'' means an entity authorized to act as a 
     fundraising organization under section 3(a).
       (2) Memorandum of Agreement.--The term ``memorandum of 
     agreement'' means a memorandum of agreement entered into by 
     the Secretary under section 3(a) that contains the terms 
     specified in section 4.
       (3) National park foundation.--The term ``National Park 
     Foundation'' means the foundation established under the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish the National Park 
     Foundation'', approved December 18, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 19e et 
     seq.).
       (4) National Park.--The term ``national park'' means--
       (A) the Grand Canyon National Park; and
       (B) any other national park designated by the Secretary 
     that has an approved general management plan with capital 
     needs in excess of $5,000,000.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a memorandum 
     of agreement under section 4 with an entity to act as an 
     authorized fundraising organization for the benefit of a 
     national park.
       (b) Bonds.--The fundraising organization for a national 
     park shall issue taxable bonds in return for the surcharge or 
     set-aside for that national park collected under section 5.
       (c) Professional Standards.--The fundraising organization 
     shall abide by all relevant professional standards regarding 
     the issuance of securities and shall comply with all 
     applicable Federal and State law.
       (d) Audit.--The fundraising organization shall be subject 
     to an audit by the Secretary.
       (e) No Liability For Bonds.--The United States shall not be 
     liable for the security of any bonds issued by the 
     fundraising organization.

     SEC. 4. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.

       The fundraising organization shall enter into a memorandum 
     of agreement that specifies--
       (1) the amount of the bond issue;
       (2) the maturity of the bonds, not to exceed 20 years;
       (3) the per capita amount required to amortize the bond 
     issue, provide for the reasonable costs of administration, 
     and maintain a sufficient reserve consistent with industry 
     standards;
       (4) the project or projects at the national park that will 
     be funded with the bond proceeds and the specific 
     responsibilities of the

[[Page 6809]]

     Secretary and the fundraising organization with respect to 
     each project; and
       (5) procedures for modifications of the agreement with the 
     consent of both parties based on changes in circumstances, 
     including modifications relating to project priorities.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL PARK SURCHARGE OR SET-ASIDE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may authorize the Superintendent of a 
     national park for which a memorandum of agreement is in 
     effect--
       (1) to charge and collect a surcharge in an amount not to 
     exceed $2 for each individual otherwise subject to an 
     entrance fee for admission to the national park; or
       (2) to set aside not more than $2 for each individual 
     charged the entrance fee.
       (b) Surcharge in Addition to Entrance Fees.--A national 
     park surcharge under subsection (a) shall be in addition to 
     any entrance fee collected under--
       (1) section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a);
       (2) the recreational fee demonstration program authorized 
     by section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-156; 1321-200; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a 
     note); or
       (3) the national park passport program established under 
     title VI of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-391; 112 Stat. 3518; 16 U.S.C. 5991 et seq.).
       (c) Limitation.--The total amount charged or set aside 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed $2 for each individual 
     charged an entrance fee.
       (d) Use.--A surcharge or set-aside under subsection (a) 
     shall be used by the fundraising organization to--
       (1) amortize the bond issue;
       (2) provide for the reasonable costs of administration; and
       (3) maintain a sufficient reserve consistent with industry 
     standards, as determined by the bond underwriter.
       (e) Excess Funds.--Any funds collected in excess of the 
     amount necessary to fund the uses in subsection (d) shall be 
     remitted to the National Park Foundation to be used for the 
     benefit of all units of the National Park System.

     SEC. 6. USE OF BOND PROCEEDS.

       (a) Eligible Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), bond proceeds 
     under this Act may be used for a project for the design, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement 
     of a facility in the national park for which the bond was 
     issued.
       (2) Project Limitations.--A project referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be consistent with--
       (A) the laws governing the National Park System;
       (B) any law governing the national park in which the 
     project is to be completed; and
       (C) the general management plan for the national park.
       (3) Prohibition on use for administration.--Other than 
     interest as provided in subsection (b), no part of the bond 
     proceeds may be used to defray administrative expenses.
       (b) Interest on Bond Proceeds.--
       (1) Authorized uses.--Any interest earned on bond proceeds 
     may be used by the fundraising organization to--
       (A) meet reserve requirements; and
       (B) defray reasonable administrative expenses incurred in 
     connection with the management and sale of the bonds.
       (2) Excess interest.--All interest on bond proceeds not 
     used for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be remitted to the 
     National Park Foundation for the benefit of all units of the 
     National Park System.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Treasury, shall promulgate regulations to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________