[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10663-10668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1249. A bill to require the President to close the Department of 
Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. 
Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and 
the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo 
are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva 
Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more 
damage than benefit in our war on terrorism.
  The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions 
applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military 
Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy 
questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. 
What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is 
harming our national interests.
  This is not solely my view.
  Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position 
believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have 
expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' 
The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.''
  According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of 
State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view.
  Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to 
concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow 
stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility 
would close during the Bush Presidency.
  That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is 
time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time 
for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation 
to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year.
  Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to 
be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo 
since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is 
estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to 
a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at 
Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release.
  This is an untenable situation.
  Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or 
affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans 
given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have 
made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the 
detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is 
to our benefit as well.
  As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we 
treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that 
Americans captured in battle are treated likewise.
  Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply 
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation 
techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among 
other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt 
on June 9, 2005.
  Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world 
opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with 
producing accurate intelligence.
  The second major result from mistaken administration policies has 
been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just 
in power.
  The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders 
such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair.
  Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day 
when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same 
arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without 
trial. It is disgraceful.''
  Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly 
that at some point has to be brought to an end.''
  While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have 
criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to 
rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we 
have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at 
Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists.
  The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo 
detention facilities within a year of enactment.
  Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an 
alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could 
be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States 
and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for 
prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a 
facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals 
judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal 
tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their 
home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This 
would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that 
the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter 
against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no 
continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, 
released.
  What would this accomplish?
  First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's 
reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice.
  Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the 
military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility 
of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how 
transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at 
Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack 
credibility.''
  Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of 
trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to 
run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, 
reporters, and military police to Guantanamo.

[[Page 10664]]

  Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let 
me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban 
fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield.
  We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation 
and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In 
fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar 
Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade 
Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently 
awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal 
justice systems are up to this task.
  Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder 
our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of 
detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of 
them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for 
years.
  Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the 
Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus 
provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified 
that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on 
the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the 
Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal 
proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the 
Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is 
subject to U.S. law.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to 
ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes 
our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our 
success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided 
fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we 
need to keep fighting our enemies.
  After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1249

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

     SECTION 1. REQUIRED CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION 
                   FACILITY.

       (a) Closure of Detention Facility.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) the President shall close the Department of Defense 
     detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
       (2) all detainees detained at such facility shall be 
     removed from the facility and--
       (A) transferred to a military or civilian detention 
     facility in the United States and charged with a violation of 
     United States or international law and tried in an Article 
     III court or military legal proceeding before a regularly-
     constituted court;
       (B) transferred to a military or civilian detention 
     facility in the United States without being charged with a 
     violation of law if the detainee may be held as an enemy 
     combatant or detained pursuant to other legal authority as 
     Congress may authorize;
       (C) transferred to an international tribunal operating 
     under the authority of the United Nations with jurisdiction 
     to hold trials of such individuals;
       (D) transferred to their country of citizenship or a 
     different country for further legal process, provided that 
     such country provides adequate assurances that the individual 
     will not be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or 
     degrading treatment; or
       (E) released from any further detention.
       (b) Immigration Status.--The transfer of an individual 
     under subsection (a) shall not be considered an entry into 
     the United States for purposes of immigration status.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1250. A bill to direct the United States Trade Representative to 
conduct an investigation of the personal exemption allowance that 
Canada provides for merchandise purchased abroad by Canadian residents, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need to 
end Canada's trade-distorting personal customs duty exemption scheme, 
which severely disadvantages border-area businesses in Maine and across 
the country.
  The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and the subsequent North 
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, of 1994 were intended to create a 
level playing field for companies in both countries in terms of cross-
border commerce. However, the spirit--if not the letter of these 
agreements--have been abrogated by Canada's schedule of personal 
exemptions from customs duties and taxes for returning Canadian 
residents.
  Under this scheme, Canada allows its residents no personal exemption 
from customs duties on goods purchased during trips abroad lasting less 
than 24 hours. For trips between 24 and 48 hours, Canadians are exempt 
from their government's duties and taxes on only the first C$50 of 
purchases. In contrast, the United States allows its residents to bring 
$200 of merchandise into the country duty free upon returning from a 
trip abroad lasting less than 48 hours.
  As the U.S. Trade Representative said in its 2007 National Trade 
Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, this disparity between the 
Canadian and U.S. personal duty exemption schedules discourages 
shopping visits to the United States by Canadian border residents. 
Understandably, it is therefore a major concern for Maine and other 
U.S. border-area businesses, which rely on such cross-border commerce 
for their very livelihoods.
  Canada's personal duty exemption scheme has thus produced an 
unwelcome area of friction in a largely vibrant and friendly cross-
border relationship. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Canada's 
international trade obligations to the United States under Chapter 
Twelve of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under that 
agreement, Canada is obligated to accord to United States service 
providers, including retail and distribution service providers, 
treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own service 
providers and the service providers of any other country.
  When one considers, as Canada's government no doubt has, that foreign 
travel by Canadian residents lasting less than 48 hours is almost 
exclusively to the United States, Canada's personal customs duty 
exemption scheme appears to be a deliberate attempt to favor its own 
retail establishments at the expense of U.S. merchants just across the 
border. This scheme thus defeats the very purpose of NAFTA--to foster 
cross-border commerce unrestrained by protectionist policies.
  Despite this inconsistency with NAFTA and frequent requests by U.S. 
lawmakers and trade officials, Canada has for years refused to change 
its personal duty exemption scheme. That is why Senator Cantwell and I 
today introduce a bill that would direct the U.S. Trade Representative 
to initiate an investigation of Canada's personal duty exemption scheme 
under the section 301 process of the Trade Act of 1974--the statue 
setting forth the procedures for identifying and taking action against 
foreign trade practices which are unjustifiable or burden and restrict 
U.S. commerce.
  The section 301 process exists--like NAFTA itself--to ensure that 
mutually respectful trade relationships can efficiently handle and 
amicably survive substantive disagreements over trade rules. We 
therefore introduce this bill not to embarrass or chastise Canada but 
to formally initiate the process of bringing this particular 
disagreement to a principled resolution. I urge our colleagues from 
border and nonborder States alike to join us seeking that fair outcome.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 1251. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the tax treatment of horses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equine 
Equity Act of 2007 with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and 
my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.

[[Page 10665]]

  On this upcoming Saturday, the sporting world turns its attention to 
my hometown of Louisville for the annual running of the Kentucky Derby. 
It has been appropriately called ``the most exciting 2 minutes in 
sports,'' and has given us such great champions as Secretariat, Seattle 
Slew, and the courageous Barbaro.
  The activities surrounding the derby also allow Kentucky to show off 
one of its signature industries, the horse industry. Long after the 
pageantry and festivities of derby day, the horse industry remains a 
vital part of Kentucky's economy and cultural heritage. Horses are 
Kentucky's largest agricultural product. The horse industry contributes 
$3.5 billion to Kentucky's economy, and directly employs more than 
50,000 Kentuckians.
  While many Americans appropriately identify the horse industry as one 
of Kentucky's signature industries, the industry's economic impact 
extends well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth. A recent economic 
impact study by the firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu found that the 
horse industry contributes approximately $39 billion in direct economic 
impacts to the U.S. economy each year. The industry sustains 1.4 
million full-time equivalent jobs each year, with over 460,000 of those 
jobs created from direct spending within the industry.
  Nearly 2 million Americans own horses, either for racing, showing or 
recreational purposes. While the popular image of horse owners might 
focus on Millionaire's Row at Churchill Downs on derby day, the facts 
tell a different story. Only about one-quarter, 28 percent, of U.S. 
horse owners have incomes greater than $100,000. More than one in every 
three, 34 percent, horse owners has an income of less than $50,000.
  Like many businesses, outside investments are essential to the 
operation and growth of the horse industry. Without investors willing 
to buy and breed horses, it is impossible for the industry to thrive. 
Unfortunately, there are several unfair, unwise provisions in the tax 
code that discourage investment in the horse industry.
  In an effort to address these concerns, today I introduce the Equine 
Equity Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and my good 
friend from Kentucky Mr. Bunning. The Equine Equity Act includes two 
key provisions.
  First, it will provide capital gains treatment for horses that is 
equal to other investments. Nearly all capital assets are eligible to 
receive more favorable capital gains tax treatment once they are held 
for 12 months. However, horses and cattle must be held for two years to 
receive capital gains treatment. This legislation would reduce the 
capital gains holding period for horses from 24 months to 12 months.
  Second, it will apply equal depreciation standards for all 
racehorses. Current law states that racehorses that begin training when 
older than 24 months of age are depreciated over 3 years, while those 
horses that begin training before reaching 24 months of age are 
depreciated over 7 years.
  Most horses begin training before they reach 24 months, but their 
racing careers do not last 7 years. This legislation would reduce the 
depreciation period for racehorses to 3 years more accurately reflect 
the racing life of horses.
  I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues from Arkansas and 
Kentucky to join me in introducing this legislation of tremendous 
importance to our states. I look forward to working with them and our 
colleagues in the Senate to enact this bipartisan bill into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1251

       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 ``Equine Equity Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR ALL RACE HORSES.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 168(e)(3)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 3-year property) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) any race horse,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF HOLDING PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231 
                   ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of 
     livestock) is amended by striking ``and horses''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1252. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
uniformity in the awarding of disability ratings for wounds or injuries 
incurred by members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would 
reform the Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System. This 
legislation offers common sense solutions to problems within the 
Disability Evaluation System that first gained public attention in 
connection with the stories about the conditions at Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center. Unfortunately, the problems with the Disability 
Evaluation System are not limited to the Army but exist throughout the 
military services.
  At an April 12, 2007, Joint Senate Armed Services and Veterans' 
Affairs Committee Hearing, we received testimony that identified 
problems with the current system. Examples of the issues identified 
were the failure to use the VA disability rating schedule in a 
consistent manner across the military services; the failure to include 
all, not just the most severe medical conditions that would render a 
servicemember unfit when making a disability decision; the lack of 
uniform training for Disability Evaluation System personnel; and the 
lack of accountability and supervision by DoD over the disability 
process.
  Some have suggested that the solution to the problems within the 
Disability Evaluation System is to radically change it. Under current 
DoD practice, a service-specific Physical Evaluation Board, PEB, makes 
a ``fitness'' for duty determination. If a servicemember is found to be 
unfit for continued service, the PEB then makes a disability decision. 
Instead of seeking ways to ensure that the system functions as 
intended, some have suggested that the military continue to make 
``fitness'' determinations, but that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
would be responsible for making disability decisions for servicemembers 
found to be unfit.
  While this may appear to be a reasonable recommendation, I am 
concerned that if this recommendation is implemented without careful 
consideration, we might be creating more problems than we can solve.
  The VA disability rating system is already stressed with its existing 
caseload. In this time of armed conflict when there are more injured 
servicemembers each day, it makes no sense to add more pressure to an 
already overburdened VA system, especially when there is no indication 
that VA would do a better job than DoD in making disability ratings. As 
long as there is consistency in how we determine what percentage of 
disability a servicemembers receives, it should not matter who makes 
the rating.
  Rather than shifting the focus to VA, I believe our focus should be 
on solving the problems of fairness and consistency for assigning 
disability ratings within and across the Services. To that end, the 
bill I am introducing addresses consistency of disability ratings 
within DoD, uniform use of the Veterans Affairs rating schedule across 
the military services, uniform training of Medical Evaluation Board/
Physical Evaluation Board personnel, and accountability by DoD to 
ensure compliance with disability rating regulations and policies.
  This legislation is a good first step towards changing the DoD 
Disability

[[Page 10666]]

Evaluation System that needs to be reformed for the benefit of our 
wounded and seriously injured servicemembers. It will improve DoD-wide 
disability rating regulations and policies, and ensure consistency as 
these regulations and policies are applied across the Services.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in making these 
positive changes to the DoD Disability Evaluation System. We owe our 
injured and disabled servicemembers no less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1252

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

     SECTION 1. UNIFORMITY IN DISABILITY RATINGS FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Uniformity in Disability Ratings.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 61 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1216 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1216a. Ratings of disability: uniformity; schedule of 
       ratings to be utilized

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     in regulations uniform standards for determinations of 
     ratings of disability under this chapter in order to assure 
     that the ratings of disability issued by the military 
     departments for members of the armed forces with a wound or 
     injury of a particular degree of disablement are consistent 
     across the military departments.
       ``(b) Consideration of Applicable Medical Conditions.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations 
     requirements that, in making the determination of a rating of 
     disability of a member of the armed forces for purposes of 
     this chapter, the Secretary concerned shall take into account 
     all medical conditions incurred by the member while entitled 
     to basic pay or while absent as described in section 
     1201(c)(3) of this title that render the member unfit to 
     perform the duties of the member's office, grade, rank, or 
     rating, as determined utilizing the standard schedule for 
     rating disabilities referred to in subsection (c).
       ``(c) Utilization of Schedule for Rating Disabilities of 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.--In order to ensure 
     uniformity in determinations of disability for purposes of 
     this chapter and under the laws administered by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs, each Secretary concerned shall utilize 
     the standard schedule for rating disabilities in use by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including any applicable 
     interpretation of the schedule by the United States Court of 
     Appeals for Veterans Claims or the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in making any determination 
     of disability for purposes of this chapter. Such Secretary 
     may not modify the schedule, or any interpretation of the 
     schedule, whether by regulation, administrative action, or 
     otherwise, in making any such determination for purposes of 
     this chapter.
       ``(d) Training of Certain Personnel.--In order to ensure 
     the compliance of such personnel with the provisions of this 
     section in the making of determinations of ratings of 
     disability of members of the armed forces under this chapter, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations 
     uniform requirements for training in the making of such 
     determinations for personnel as follows:
       ``(1) Physical evaluation board personnel.
       ``(2) Physicians who serve on medical examination 
     boards.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 61 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1216 the following new 
     item:

``1216a. Ratings of disability: uniformity; schedule of ratings to be 
              utilized.''.

       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 1216(a) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Such regulations shall be consistent with the provisions of 
     section 1216a of this title and the regulations prescribed 
     under that section.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     the regulations required by section 1216a of title 10, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a)), not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report setting forth the actions to be taken by 
     the Secretary to implement the requirements to be prescribed 
     under section 1216a of title 10, United States Code (as so 
     added), and to otherwise ensure that determinations of the 
     ratings of disability of members of the Armed Forces for 
     purposes of chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, are 
     made in a fair, uniform, and timely manner.
       (d) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     section 1216a of title 10, United States Code (as so added), 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Akaka) (by request):
  S. 1253. A bill to establish a fund for the National Park Centennial 
Challenge, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on March 9, 2007, the Administration 
transmitted draft legislation entitled the National Park Centennial 
Challenge Fund Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. On behalf of Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, and myself, I am pleased today to 
introduce the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act, by request, 
as a courtesy to the Administration.
  Both Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and National Park 
Service Director Mary Bomar have made clear that the National Park 
Centennial Initiative is one of the highest priorities of the 
Department of the Interior. The initiative proposes up to $3 billion in 
new funds over the next decade, with three components.
  The first component of the initiative is the ``President's Centennial 
Commitment,'' under which the Administration is proposing an additional 
$100 million per year in new discretionary funds for the National Park 
Service. The second and third components, which the Administration 
collectively describes as the ``President's Centennial Challenge,'' 
would seek to raise up to $100 million each year over a ten-year period 
from private donations. All donations would be matched with new Federal 
funding, up to $100 million annually.
  The new funding would be used for ``signature projects and 
programs,'' which the draft legislation defines as ``a project or 
program identified by the Director of the National Park Service as one 
that will help prepare the national parks for another century of 
conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.''
  Mr. President, while I commend the Administration for this effort to 
secure increased funding for our national parks, I still need to better 
understand many of the specifics of the proposal, and until then, am 
reserving judgment on it.
  For example, we need to understand whether the initiative will result 
in significant new funding for our national parks, or whether increases 
in funding from the initiative will simply be offset by funding 
reductions in other important areas. I also have questions about 
whether the philanthropic goals proposed by this legislation are 
realistic, given the historic levels of private contributions for 
national parks. In addition, we need to learn more about the type of 
projects and programs that would be funded under the initiative, and 
what role Congress should have in establishing funding priorities. 
Finally, any legislative initiative that proposes $1 billion in new 
direct spending without an offset will certainly be carefully reviewed.
  Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar have indicated that they 
intend to make recommendations to the President later this month on 
appropriate signature projects and programs as well as goals for the 
initiative. I look forward to working with both Secretary Kempthorne 
and Director Bomar on this proposal once those recommendations are 
complete.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record, along with the transmittal letter from Director Bomar and a 
section-by-section analysis of the bill prepared by the Department of 
the Interior.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1253

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park Centennial 
     Challenge Fund Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) our national parks are icons of America;

[[Page 10667]]

       (2) the one hundredth anniversary of the National Park 
     System will be in 2016;
       (3) it is appropriate for all Americans to help in the 
     efforts to enhance our parks as the country gets ready for 
     this centennial celebration;
       (4) the President has proposed a National Park Centennial 
     Initiative that, over ten years, will provide up to 
     $3,000,000,000 to prepare parks for another century of 
     conservation, preservation, and enjoyment; and
       (5) a part of that Initiative is the establishment of a 
     Centennial Challenge to encourage individuals, foundations, 
     and the private sector to donate money each year by providing 
     up to $100,000,000 in dedicated Federal funding to match 
     donations for signature projects and programs.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to establish a 
     fund in the Treasury that will be used to finance signature 
     projects and programs to enhance the National Park System as 
     it approaches its centennial in 2016 and to prepare the parks 
     for another century of conservation, preservation, and 
     enjoyment.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Challenge fund.--The term ``Challenge Fund'' means the 
     National Park Centennial Challenge Fund.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the National Park Service.
       (3) Qualified donation.--The term ``qualified donation'' 
     means a cash non-Federal donation to the National Park 
     Service that the Director certifies is for a listed signature 
     project or program.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means Secretary of 
     the Interior.
       (5) Signature project or program.--The term ``signature 
     project or program'' means any project or program identified 
     by the Director as one that will help prepare the national 
     parks for another century of conservation, preservation and 
     enjoyment.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund to be known as the National Park Centennial Challenge 
     Fund. The Challenge Fund shall consist of:
       (1) Qualified donations transferred from the Donations to 
     the National Park Service account, in accordance with section 
     6(a).
       (2) Amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 
     Treasury, in accordance with section 6(b).
       (b) Availability.--All amounts deposited in the Challenge 
     Fund shall be available, subject to restrictions in section 
     6(c), to the Secretary for signature projects and programs 
     under this Act without further appropriation and without 
     fiscal year limitation. No monies shall be available for 
     indirect administrative costs. The expenditure of amounts in 
     the Challenge Fund shall follow Federal procurement and 
     financial laws and standards.

     SEC. 5. SIGNATURE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) List.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     shall develop a list of signature projects and programs 
     eligible for funding from the Challenge Fund. The list shall 
     be submitted to the President and to the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources in the United 
     States Senate, and to the Committees on Appropriations and 
     Natural Resources in the House of Representatives.
       (b) Signature Projects and Programs.--For purposes of this 
     Act, a signature project or program shall be a project or 
     program identified by the Director as one that will help 
     prepare the national parks for another century of 
     conservation, preservation and enjoyment.
       (c) Updates.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     may, from time to time as the Secretary or Director finds 
     necessary, add any project or program to the list developed 
     pursuant to subsection (a) that the Director believes is a 
     signature project or program. If the Director adds any 
     project or program to the list, the Secretary shall notify 
     the Committees referred to in subsection (a) at the time the 
     project or program is added.

     SEC. 6. DONATIONS AND MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS.

       (a) Qualified Donations.--Beginning on October 1, 2007, and 
     ending on September 30, 2017, the Secretary may transfer to 
     the Challenge Fund qualified donations of cash, including 
     cash to liquidate a letter of credit, received by the 
     National Park Service.
       (b) Matching Amount.--There is hereby appropriated in each 
     fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2007 and ending on 
     September 30, 2017, an amount equal to the qualified 
     donations received and the pledge of donations through 
     letters of credit in the same fiscal year, not to exceed 
     $100,000,000 in any one year. In no case may the matching 
     amount exceed the amount of donations received or pledged in 
     any year. For the purpose of this subsection, the Secretary 
     may consider a donation for any fiscal year to be received 
     when a pledge of a donation for that fiscal year is 
     guaranteed and a valid irrevocable letter of credit is issued 
     for such purposes.
       (c) Obligations.--The Secretary may not obligate any 
     amounts based on a letter of credit, or amounts to match a 
     letter of credit pursuant to subsection (b), until amounts 
     from that letter of credit are deposited in the Challenge 
     Fund.
       (d) Solicitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     as expanding any authority that exists on the date of its 
     enactment with respect to the ability of the National Park 
     Service and its employees to receive or solicit for 
     donations.

     SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       The Secretary shall provide with the submission of the 
     President's budget a list of the signature projects and 
     programs and the status of their funding.

     SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____

                                          United States Department


                                              of the Interior,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dick Cheney,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is enclosed a draft bill, the 
     proposed ``National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act.'' We 
     recommend that the draft bill be introduced, referred to the 
     appropriate Committee for consideration, and enacted.
       August 25, 2016, will be the one hundredth birthday of the 
     National Park Service (NPS). In 1872, President Grant signed 
     a law to protect Yellowstone, making it America's first 
     national park. By 1916, 40 national parks and monuments 
     existed, but they had no clear or consistent management. On 
     August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson established the NPS 
     to protect and manage these magnificent parks. The challenge 
     facing the NPS as it readies itself for its centennial 
     celebration is to conserve what is timeless while keeping 
     pace with the modern needs and expectations of the American 
     people. During the last five years, the NPS has built a 
     strong foundation of improving parks, with 6,600 park 
     improvements completed or underway. This past August, on the 
     90th birthday of the NPS, President Bush issued a challenge 
     to prepare national parks for another century of 
     conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.
       President Bush stated: ``I call on all Americans to help in 
     these efforts and to enhance our parks as we get ready for 
     the National Park Service's centennial celebration. Through 
     continuing cooperation and partnership, our national parks 
     can endure for the next 100 years and beyond.''
       The President also directed the Secretary of the Interior 
     to develop a formal written directive about the future of 
     national parks. He directed us to establish specific 
     performance goals that, when achieved, will make sure our 
     parks continue to be places where children and families can 
     learn about our nation's great history, enjoy quality time 
     together and have fun outdoors. He asked that we identify 
     signature projects and programs that reflect and highlight 
     these goals that would be undertaken by leveraging 
     philanthropic, partnership, and government investments for 
     the benefit of national parks and their visitors.
       The President's FY 2008 budget includes the National Park 
     Centennial Initiative, one of the highest priorities of the 
     Deprtment of the Interior. This Initiative proposes up to $3 
     billion in new funds for the National Park System over the 
     next ten years. The President's FY 2008 parks budget totals 
     nearly $2.4 billion, the largest budget ever for programs 
     that support parks. It includes the highest increase in parks 
     operation funding ever proposed. It provides for further 
     improvement of our national parks during the next decade 
     leading up to the 2016 centennial celebration. It funds:
       The President's Centennial Commitment: This is $100 million 
     a year--one billion dollars over 10 years--for activities to 
     achieve new levels of excellence in our parks. These 
     discretionary funds will be used to hire more seasonal 
     rangers, interpreters, and maintenance workers, repair 
     buildings, improve natural landscapes, and enhance the Junior 
     Ranger Program.
       The President's Centennial Challenge: We are challenging 
     individuals, foundations, businesses, and the private sector 
     to contribute at least $100 million annually to support 
     signature programs and projects in our national parks. The 
     enclosed draft bill would allow us to match those 
     contributions with up to $100 million of mandatory funding 
     annually for the next ten years.
       The proposed National Park Service Centennial Challenge 
     Fund Act would establish the National Park Service Centennial 
     Challenge Fund (Challenge Fund), which would encourage 
     private donations for signature projects and programs in 
     national parks by matching those donations with Federal funds 
     of up to $100 million a year for a ten year period ending on 
     September 30, 2017. The Fund would be available to the 
     Secretary without further appropriation and with no fiscal 
     year limitations.
       A list of signature projects and programs eligible for 
     funding under the Challenge will be included in the 
     Centennial report that the Secretary plans to send to the 
     President in late May 2007. The list will be prepared by the 
     Director of the National Park Service, drawing on ideas 
     generated through listening sessions, public engagement, and 
     the input of Park Service professionals. Additional projects 
     may be added to the list from time to time, as necessary.

[[Page 10668]]

       The President's Centennial Challenge Fund will not be used 
     to hire NPS permanent staff or for projects outside of park 
     boundaries. Its focus will be on those signature projects an 
     programs that will help prepare the National Park System for 
     another century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.
       Soliciting for Centennial Challenge donations will be done 
     primarily through the National Park Foundation and local 
     friends' groups. National Park Service employees will be 
     subject to the current fundraising guidelines. The draft bill 
     clearly states its intent is not to expand existing authority 
     in this area. For large donations, the National Park Service 
     will enter into a written agreement with a donor that lays 
     out the terms and conditions for how the funds will be used.
       The President has called on all Americans to help in 
     conserving natural resources and improving the condition of 
     our park facilities. It is his hope and the hope of the 
     Department of the Interior that through leveraging 
     philanthropic, partnership, and government investments for 
     the benefit of national parks and their visitors the national 
     parks can endure for the next 100 years and beyond.
       The President's budget includes appropriate proposed 
     offsets within the budget of the Department of the Interior 
     that, if enacted, are sufficient to ensure that this proposal 
     complies with Rule XXI, new clause 10, of the House of 
     Representatives.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that 
     presentation of this proposal to the Congress is in accord 
     with the President's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mary A. Bomar,
     Director, National Park Service.
                                  ____


  The Proposed National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act Section-by-
                            Section Analysis

       Section 1. Short Title. The first section provides for the 
     title of the Act, the National Park Centennial Fund Act.
       Section 2. Findings and Purpose. The second section 
     includes findings explaining the need for the National Park 
     Centennial Challenge and the Challenge Fund established under 
     this Act. Subsection (b) sets forth the purpose of the Act, 
     which is to establish a fun in the Treasury that will include 
     private donations, and provide Federal funds to match those 
     donations, for signature projects and programs to enhance the 
     National Park System as it approaches its Centennial 
     celebration in 2016.
       Section 3. Definitions. Section 3 defines the terms used in 
     the Act.
       Secton 4. National Park Centennial Challenge Fund. This 
     section establishes the National Park Centennial Challenge 
     Fund, the Challenge Fund for short. The Challenge Fund shall 
     consist of amounts for signature projects and programs 
     transferred from the Donations to the National Park Service 
     account and amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 
     Treasury as matching funds.
       Subsection (b) provides that all amounts in the Fund are to 
     be available to the Secretary of the Interior without further 
     appropriation and without any fiscal year limitation. This 
     allows the National Park Service (NPS) to receive and match 
     donations for signature projects and programs that may take 
     more than one fiscal year to complete or that may need a 
     certain level of funding before they commence. No funds from 
     this account are to be used for indirect administrative 
     costs. The expenditure of amounts in the Challenge Fund shall 
     follow Federal procurement and financial laws and standards.
       Section 5. Signature Projects and Programs. Subsection (a) 
     requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
     NPS, to develop a list of signature projects and programs 
     eligible for funding from the Challenge Fund. That list is to 
     be submitted to the President and to the Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources, and the 
     House Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources. 
     Subsection (b) provides that a signature project or program 
     is a project or program identified by the Director of the NPS 
     as one that will help prepare the NPS for another century of 
     conservation, preservation, and enjoyment. Signature projects 
     and programs will be chosen after listening sessions, public 
     engagement, and the input of NPS employees.
       Subsection (c) authorizes the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, to add projects to the list from time-to-time as 
     they find necessary. It requires notification like that 
     required in subsection (a) for the original list of signature 
     projects and programs.
       Section 6. Donations and Matching Funds. Subsection (a) 
     authorizes the Secretary to transfer, to the Challenge Fund 
     qualified donations of cash received by the National Park 
     Service. This includes cash payments to liquidate commitments 
     made under a valid letter of credit.
       Subsection (b) appropriates up to $100 million a year in 
     matching funds. The amount of matching funds made available 
     each year would equal the qualified cash donations received 
     in that year, plus the amount of donations pledged in that 
     year under a valid irrevocable letter of credit. For 
     donations pledged under a letter of credit, a match would be 
     provided when the commitment is made and not a second time 
     when the donation is paid. If a letter of credit is 
     withdrawn, then the associated matching funds would be 
     returned to the Treasury. Up to $100 million in matching 
     funds would be available in each year beginning in fiscal 
     year 2008 and going through fiscal year 2017. If all of the 
     $100 million in matching funds is not used in a given year, 
     the remaining balance cannot be used to increase the amount 
     of matching funds in subsequent years. For example, if only 
     $60 million in donations or commitments under a letter of 
     credit are received and are thus eligible for the same amount 
     of matching funds in a fiscal year, that does not mean that 
     matching funds available for the next fiscal year would 
     increase to $140 million.
       Subsection (c) specifies that the Secretary may not 
     obligate any amounts based on a letter of credit, or amounts 
     to match a letter of credit pursuant to subsection (b), until 
     the donation promised under a letter of credit is deposited 
     in the Challenge Fund.
       Subsection (d) makes it clear that nothing in this Act 
     expands the existing authority of the NPS and its employees 
     with regard to fundraising. NPS employees will still be 
     subject to Director's Order 21, which specifically sets out 
     the guidelines with regard to this matter.
       Section 7. Report to Congress. This section requires the 
     Secretary to submit an annual report with the President's 
     budget on the administration of the Centennial Challenge. The 
     report is to include the current list of signature projects 
     and programs and a description of any funding they have 
     received from the Challenge Fund.
       Section 8. Regulations. This section authorizes the 
     Secretary to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary 
     to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________