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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.