[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S945-S953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 226. A bill to designate additional land as within the Chaco 
Culture Archaeological Protection Sites, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  the chacoan outliers protection act

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995. This legislation will expand 
the Chaco culture archaeological protection sites to include an 
additional 5,516 acres containing structures and artifacts associated 
with the Chacoan Anasazi Indian culture of the San Juan Basin of New 
Mexico.
  Chaco Canyon lies within the San Juan Basin in northwestern New 
Mexico, an area of major significance to the cultural history of North 
America. It is estimated that the first human occupation of the area 
dates as far back as 10,000 years ago, when Paleo-Indian hunters 
entered the area.
  The culture of these hunter-gatherers evolved quickly. Within the 
period spanning from 500 to 900 A.D., the culture of the people of the 
San Juan Basin, part of a larger culture known as the Anasazi, a Navajo 
term meaning ``the ancient ones,'' had developed more quickly than 
nearby Anasazi communities and cultures.
  While modern-day Chaco Canyon is a remote and barren site, ancient 
Chaco Canyon was the center of the Anasazi civilization. The Anasazi 
flourished, building more pueblos and structures around Chaco Canyon 
and establishing a large network of outlying communities, which are 
what we now refer to as the Chacoan outliers. These outliers were 
spread over an area of more than 30,000 square miles and linked by an 
extensive system of roads.
  As suddenly as the Anasazi evolved and thrived in the San Juan area, 
by 1300 A.D. the culture just as quickly disappeared, lasting only a 
brief 400 years. The sudden evolution and disappearance of the Anasazi, 
as well as the purpose of Chaco Canyon and its outliers, are two of 
archaeology's more intriguing mysteries.
  It is traditionally believed that Chaco was a trade center for as 
many as 75 outlying communities in the area. Other maintain that Chaco 
was a religious and ceremonial site. While no one is certain exactly 
what function Chaco served in its time, all agree that its remaining 
sites must be preserved and protected.
  Chaco Canyon has long been recognized as a nationally and 
internationally significant site. In March 1907, a Presidential 
proclamation established Chaco Canyon as a national monument. The 
monument was further enlarged in 1928 by another Presidential 
proclamation.
  I have long been a supporter of preserving these precious areas. In 
1980, I introduced and the Congress passed the Chaco Culture National 
Historical Park Establishment Act, which became Public Law 96-550. This 
act enlarged the park and reestablished it as the Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park, consisting of the main body of the park and 
three noncontiguous units. The act also mandated procedures for the 
protection, preservation, and administration of archaeological remnants 
of the Chacoan culture.
  When Chaco Canyon was first afforded Federal protection in 1907, 
numerous aracheological sites were known to exist outside the 
boundaries of the national monument. Their relationship to Chaco 
Canyon, however, was unclear. Archaeologists subsequently determined 
that many of these sites--some as far as 100 miles from Chaco Canyon--
were part of the Chacoan culture.
  To the untrained eye, the physical remains of the Chacoan outliers 
are difficult to discern. At some of the sites, walls still stand. At 
most sites, however, the magnificent structures of the Anasazi people 
have collapsed into a mound of rubble, which over the years have been 
buried by the desert sands and eroded by sand and wind. Unfortunately, 
many of these sites were further vandalized by unscrupulous pot hunters 
or degraded by development activities.
  In order to protect these outliers, the Chaco Culture National 
Historical Park Establishment Act designated 33 sites as Chaco culture 
archaeological protection sites. The Secretary of the Interior is 
charged with managing these sites in order to preserve them and provide 
for their interpretation and study. Activities that would endanger the 
cultural values of the sites are prohibited.
  Ownership of the lands containing the archaeological protection sites 
is a checkerboard of private, State, Federal, and Indian interests. The 
Indian interests include trust, allotted, and fee parcels. In addition, 
some surface and subsurface ownerships are divided between two or more 
entities. Therefore, the act mandated that these lands be protected by 
cooperative agreements, rather than Federal acquisition, where 
possible.
  The Chacoan outliers are not included in the National Park System. 
Rather, they are managed primarily by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 
Navajo Nation, and the Bureau of Land Management. These entities are 
responsible for resource protection and preservation at the sites.
  This legislation will expand the existing Chaco culture 
archaeological protection sites system to add a total of eight new 
sites, and deleting two others. Of the two sites deleted, one has been 
incorporated into El Malpais National Monument, and the other is owned 
and protected by the Ute mountain tribe which prefers to manage this 
site. The additions are all publicly owned. This legislation also 
modifies the boundaries of certain already designated protection sites.
  Included in these new archaeological protection sites is the first 
Forest Service site, Chimney Rock in southern Colorado. The Manuelito 
sites have been designated as ``Priority 1 National Historic 
Landmarks'' because severe erosion has damaged the sites. The Morris 41 
site was added to the list as a result of hearings in the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last year.
  The net results of the changes to be made by the Chacoan Outliers 
Protection Act would be to increase the number of Chaco culture 
archaeological protection sites from 33 to 39 and to increase the 
acreage of the system by 5,516 acres to 14,372 acres.
  This legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to use 
a combination of land acquisition authority and cooperative agreements 
to provide archaeological resources protection at those sites remaining 
in private ownership. Testimony received during hearings in the House 
of Representatives last year indicated that the Department of the 
Interior did not have authority to purchase sites without clear 
evidence of damage or destruction of the Chacoan resources located in 
such areas. The bill was modified by the House to authorize the 
acquisition of such sites before they are destroyed.
  Twenty-five of the thirty-nine sites designated under this bill are 
under Navajo jurisdiction. The Navajo people have preserved these 
resources in the past, but no single agency has previously taken the 
lead role in assisting the Navajo Nation in these efforts to ensure 
that the Navajo Nation will have a meaningful and equitable role in 
managing the Chaco sites. Therefore, this bill directs the Secretary to 
assist the Navjo Nation in the protection and management of the sites 
located on lands under the Navajo Nation's jurisdiction.
  These changes are the result of dedicated years of research, 
recommendations, and assistance from Federal, 
[[Page S946]] State, and Indian officials and organizations, 
archaeologists, the Interagency Management Group and the Chaco Culture 
Archaeological Protection Sites, the National Park Service, the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, 
the Navajo Nation, and the State of New Mexico. These changes are also 
in accordance with the 1983 Joint Management Plan for the Chaco culture 
archaeological protection sites.
  This bill is similar to the modified version of S. 310 from the 103d 
Congress. This bill was approved in the Senate, modified slightly by 
the House, and was one of many public lands bills cleared for floor 
action by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, but 
never brought to the floor for final passage. I am hopeful we will be 
able to overcome the final hurdle and will pass legislation during the 
104th Congress. These sites are part of the cultural heritage of all 
Americans and we must act quickly to preserve them. Cultural resources, 
once lost, can never be restored or regained.
  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. 226

       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 ``Chacoan Outliers Protection 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       Section 501(b) of Public Law 96-550 (16 U.S.C. 410ii(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``San Juan Basin;'' and inserting ``San 
     Juan Basin and surrounding areas;''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONS TO CHACO CULTURE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROTECTION 
                   SITES.

       Subsection 502(b) of Public Law 96-550 (16 U.S.C. 410ii-
     1(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Thirty-nine outlying sites as generally depicted 
     on a map entitled `Chaco Culture Archeological Protection 
     Sites', numbered 310/80,033-B and dated September 1991, are 
     designated as `Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites'. 
     The 39 archeological protection sites totaling approximately 
     14,372 acres are identified as follows:

``Name:                                                          Acres:
  Allentown.....................................................380....

  Andrews Ranch.................................................950....

  Bee Burrow....................................................480....

  Bisa'ani......................................................131....

  Casa del Rio...................................................40....

  Casamero......................................................160....

  Chimney Rock................................................3,160....

  Coolidge..................................................... 450....

  Dalton Pass...................................................135....

  Dittert.......................................................480....

  Great Bend.....................................................26....

  Greenlee Ruin..................................................60....

  Grey Hill Spring...............................................23....

  Guadalupe.....................................................115....

  Halfway House..................................................40....

  Haystack......................................................565....

  Hogback.......................................................453....

  Indian Creek..................................................100....

  Jaquez.........................................................66....

  Kin Nizhoni...................................................726....

  Lake Valley....................................................30....

  Manuelito-Atsee Nitsaa.........................................60....

  Manuelito-Kin Hochoi..........................................116....

  Morris 41......................................................85....

  Muddy Water.................................................1,090....

  Navajo Springs................................................260....

  Newcomb........................................................50....

  Peach Springs...............................................1,046....

  Pierre's Site.................................................440....

  Raton Well.....................................................23....

  Salmon Ruin.....................................................5....

  San Mateo......................................................61....

  Sanostee....................................................1,565....

  Section 8......................................................10....

  Skunk Springs/Crumbled House..................................533....

  Standing Rock.................................................348....

  Toh-la-kai.....................................................10....

  Twin Angeles...................................................40....

  Upper Kin Klizhin.............................................60.....
       ``(2) The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) kept on file and available for public inspection in--
       ``(i) appropriate offices of the National Park Service;
       ``(ii) the office of the State Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and
       ``(iii) the office of the Area Director of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs in Window Rock, Arizona; and
       ``(B) made available for the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (A) to the offices of the Arizona and New Mexico 
     State Historic Preservation Officers.''.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

       Section 503 of Public Law 96-550 (16 U.S.C. 410ii-2) is 
     amended by inserting ``(referred to in this title as the 
     `Secretary')'' after ``Secretary of the Interior''.

     SEC. 5. LAND ACQUISITIONS.

       Section 504(c)(2) of Public Law 96-550 (16 U.S.C. 410ii-
     3(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall seek to use a combination of land 
     acquisition authority under this section and cooperative 
     agreements under section 505 to protect archeological 
     resources at such sites described in section 502(b) as remain 
     in private ownership.''.

     SEC. 6. ASSISTANCE TO THE NAVAJO NATION.

       Section 506 of Public Law 96-550 (16 U.S.C. 410ii-5) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
     National Park Service, shall assist the Navajo Nation in the 
     protection and management of such Chaco Culture Archeological 
     Protection Sites as are located on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation through a grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement entered into under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.).
       ``(2) The assistance provided under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) consist of assistance in site planning, resource 
     protection, interpretation, resource management actions, and 
     such other activities as may be identified in the grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement; and
       ``(B) include assistance with the development of a Navajo 
     facility to serve persons who seek to appreciate the Chacoan 
     Outlier Sites.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Baucus):
  S. 229. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to conduct risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses 
in promulgating regulations relating to human health and the 
environment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


     the epa risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis act of 1995

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that 
would improve the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of 
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws by 
requiring that, before issuing certain major regulations, the EPA 
Administrator must conduct a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  The bill is identical to the Johnston-Baucus-Moynihan amendment, 
which was approved by a vote of 90 to 8 and incorporated into section 
18 of the Safe Drinking Water Act that the Senate passed last year. 
That amendment is described, in detail, on pages S5875-5881 of the May 
18, 1994, Record.
  By way of brief background, we in Congress sometimes react to the 
problems of the day. We passed the Superfund law in 1980 as a reaction 
to the disaster at Love Canal. The Oil Pollution Control Act was passed 
after several tankers went aground fouling our coastal waters. And so 
on.
  For the most part these are sound laws that protect our health and 
our environment. But, Mr. President, it is the rare case when Congress 
has all the information when these laws are enacted. Most often we are 
reacting to the most recent examples of the problem, which 
unfortunately are just the tip of the iceberg.
  But it is regulatory agencies like EPA who have the responsibility to 
address the rest of the problem. And, when they do, they are almost 
always faced with difficult task of deciding how much protection is 
sufficient.
  We may never have enough information to legislate the right level of 
protection in every case. But what we can do is make sure that these 
judgments are fair, unbiased, and based on the best information and 
analyses available.
  That is the purpose of this bill. It requires EPA to conduct a 
thorough assessment of the risks before it issues a major regulation. 
It also requires the Administrator to certify that the benefits 
outweigh the costs, that the best available information was used, and 
that there are no other alternatives that are more cost-effective.
  This will ensure that the public and everyone affected by the 
regulation will have full disclosure. They will know what is behind the 
regulation and why it is needed. They will also know how the risk 
addressed by the regulation compare with other risks encouraged in 
everyday life.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe in the principles of risk assessment. 
But it must be applied fairly, and must not be used to masquerade 
efforts to undermine environmental protection.
  Unlike some other risk assessment proposals, this bill will not roll 
back the environmental gains we have already made, or tie the 
Environmental Protection Agency in knots. It is limited to key rules 
that have a major 
[[Page S947]] economic impact. It requires a careful assessment or 
regulatory benefits, including environmental benefits that may be 
difficult to calculate. It will not trigger a flurry of lawsuits that 
clog the courts. Instead, it applies risk assessment judiciously, so 
that we can improve our efforts to protect human health and the 
environment.
  In closing, I wish to complement Senator Johnston, who has worked 
hard on this issue for several years and negotiated a solid compromise 
during the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 229

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

     SECTION 1. RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

       (a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), in 
     promulgating any proposed or final major regulation relating 
     to human health or the environment, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall publish in the Federal 
     Register along with the regulation a clear and concise 
     statement that--
       (1) describes and, to the extent practicable, quantifies 
     the risks to human health or the environment to be addressed 
     by the regulation (including, where applicable and 
     practicable, the human health risks to significant 
     subpopulations who are disproportionately exposed or 
     particularly sensitive);
       (2) compares the human health or environmental risks to be 
     addressed by the regulation to other risks chosen by the 
     Administrator, including--
       (A) at least three other risks regulated by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or another Federal agency; 
     and
       (B) at least three other risks that are not directly 
     regulated by the Federal Government;
       (3) estimates--
       (A) the costs to the United States Government, State and 
     local governments, and the private sector of implementing and 
     complying with the regulation; and
       (B) the benefits of the regulation;

     including both quantifiable measures of costs and benefits, 
     to the fullest extent that they can be estimated, and 
     qualitative measures that are difficult to quantify; and
       (4) contains a certification by the Administrator that--
       (A) the analyses performed under paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     are based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific 
     information;
       (B) the regulation is likely to significantly reduce the 
     human health or environmental risks to be addressed;
       (C) there is no regulatory alternative that is allowed by 
     the statute under which the regulation is promulgated and 
     that would achieve an equivalent reduction in risk in a more 
     cost-effective manner, along with a brief explanation of why 
     other such regulatory alternatives that were considered by 
     the Administrator were found to be less cost-effective; and
       (D) the regulation is likely to produce benefits to human 
     health or the environment that will justify the costs to the 
     United States Government, State and local governments, and 
     the private sector of implementing and complying with the 
     regulation.
       (b) Substantially Similar Final Regulations.--If the 
     Administrator determines that a final major regulation is 
     substantially similar to the proposed version of the 
     regulation with respect to each of the matters referred to in 
     subsection (a), the Administrator may publish in the Federal 
     Register a reference to the statement published under 
     subsection (a) for the proposed regulation in lieu of 
     publishing a new statement for the final regulation.
       (c) Reporting.--If the Administrator cannot certify with 
     respect to one or more of the matters addressed in subsection 
     (a)(4), the Administrator shall identify those matters for 
     which certification cannot be made, and shall include a 
     statement of the reasons therefor in the Federal Register 
     along with the regulation. Not later than March 1 of each 
     year, the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress 
     identifying those major regulations promulgated during the 
     previous calendar year for which complete certification was 
     not made, and summarizing the reasons therefor.
       (d) Other Requirements.--Nothing in this section affects 
     any other provision of Federal law, or changes the factors 
     that the Administrator is authorized to consider in 
     promulgating a regulation pursuant to any statute, or shall 
     delay any action required to meet a deadline imposed by 
     statute or a court.
       (e) Judicial Review.--Nothing in this section creates any 
     right to judicial or administrative review, nor creates any 
     right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 
     law or equity by a party against the United States, its 
     agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or 
     any other person. If a major regulation is subject to 
     judicial or administrative review under any other provision 
     of law, the adequacy of the certification prepared pursuant 
     to this section, and any alleged failure to comply with this 
     section, may not be used as grounds for affecting or 
     invalidating such major regulation, although the statements 
     and information prepared pursuant to this section, including 
     statements contained in the certification, may be considered 
     as part of the record for judicial or administrative review 
     conducted under such other provision of law.
       (f) Definition of Major Regulation.--For purposes of this 
     section, ``major regulation'' means a regulation that the 
     Administrator determines may have an effect on the economy of 
     $100,000,000 or more in any one year.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 227. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide an 
exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicly by means of 
digital transmissions and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


         THE PERFORMANCE RIGHTS IN SOUND RECORDINGS ACT OF 1995

 Mr. HATCH.
  Mr. President, today, together with my distinguished colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, I am introducing the Performance Rights 
in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
  Despite that complicated title this legislation is in fact a simple 
bill that amends the Copyright Act by giving those who create sound 
recordings the basic copyright protections that current law gives to 
all other creators. Specifically, the bill provides that the copyright 
owners of sound recordings have the right to benefit from the digital 
transmissions that may be made of their music.
  Thus, like other copyright owners, such as film and video producers, 
those who create sound recordings will, on passage of this bill, be 
able to license many of the digital transmissions made of their works.
  One common illustration of how this disparity in treatment operates 
in practice will demonstrate the irrationality of our current law: Many 
new recordings are released in video formats as well as in traditional 
audio only form. When the video is broadcast on television or cable, 
the composer of the music, the publisher of the music, the producer of 
the video, and the performer of the work are all entitled to a 
performance right royalty. However, when only the audio recording is 
played on the radio or delivered by means of a satellite or other 
subscription service, only the composer and publisher have performance 
rights that must be respected--even though the audio recording may be 
identical to the video soundtrack. The producer's and performer's 
interests are ignored.
  It should be initially noted, Mr. President, that this bill does not 
impose new financial burdens on broadcasters or on any other broad 
class of users who traditionally perform sound recordings. Those users 
will instead continue to be subject only to those financial burdens 
that they voluntarily undertake. The aim of this bill is simply to 
level the playing field by according to sound recordings most of the 
same performance rights that all other works capable of performance 
have long enjoyed.
  As I noted last Congress, sound recordings are not the only source of 
music available to broadcasters, nor is music programming the only 
format. Should those who may be granted new performance rights in the 
digital transmission of sound recordings be so unwise as to unfairly 
and unrealistically charge for licensing their works or to actually 
withhold their works from the public, then the detriment will fall 
principally on the very copyright owners that the law is designed to 
protect. But, in any event, the bill ensures that most digital 
transmissions of sound recordings will have the right to a license, on 
terms to be negotiated, or if necessary, arbitrated.
  The basic issue raised by the Performance Rights Act is not new, Mr. 
President. The importance of the performance right issue was recognized 
when the Copyright Act of 1976 was debated by us, though it was not 
ultimately addressed by that act. Congress did, however, request a 
study of the issue to be made by the Copyright Office, and that study, 
released in 1978, did conclude that a performance right in sound 
recordings was warranted. This was at a time, it should be noted, when 
few could have anticipated the 
[[Page S948]] widespread availability of digital technology and the 
possibility for flawless copying that is now a reality.
  A subsequent study of this issue was provided to the Subcommittee on 
Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks in October 1991, in response to a 
joint request by Chairman DeConcini and Representative Hughes, chairman 
of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Their request was 
for an assessment of the effect of digital audio technology on 
copyright holders and their works. Again, the Copyright Office 
concluded that sound recordings should, for copyright purposes, be 
equated with other works protected by copyright. From this premise 
flows the inevitable conclusion that the producers and performers of 
sound recordings are entitled to a public performance right, just as 
are all other authors of works capable of performance. Thus, it should 
not be surprising that the Copyright Office recommended in 1991 that 
Congress enact legislation recognizing the performance right. Senator 
Feinstein and I responded to that recommendation when, in the 103d 
Congress, we filed S. 1421, the Performance Rights in Sound Recordings 
Act of 1993.
  In the months following introduction of S. 1421, a number of highly 
productive roundtable discussions were held, along with full hearings 
by the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the 
Administration of Justice. In these forums, and in private discussions 
and negotiations, a remarkable variety of viewpoints were aired. As a 
result of this exchange numerous additions to the original text of S. 
1421 have been incorporated in this year's bill, in response to the 
legitimate concerns of interested parties, including, but not limited 
to, music publishers, composers and songwriters, musicians, 
broadcasters, cable operators, background music suppliers, and 
performing rights societies.
  Principal among these changes is the decision to give the bill a more 
limited scope. Unlike S. 1421, today's bill does not affect the 
interests of broadcasters, as that industry has traditionally been 
understood. While strong arguments can be made in favor of attaching a 
performance right to every performance of a sound recording, including 
analog and digital broadcasts, it is also true that long-established 
business practices within the music and broadcasting industries 
represent a highly complex system of interlocking relationships which 
function effectively for the most part and should not be lightly upset.
  Of equal importance is the fact that traditional broadcasting does 
not present a threat to displace sales of sound recordings to the same 
extent that pay-per-listen, direct satellite, and subscription services 
do.
  Currently, sales of recordings in record stores and other retail 
outlets represent virtually the only avenue for the recovery of the 
very substantial investment required to bring to life a sound 
recording. There are no royalties payable to the creators of the sound 
recording for the broadcast or other public performance of the work.
  If the technological status quo could be maintained, it might well be 
that the current laws could be tolerated. But, we know that 
technological developments such as satellite and digital transmission 
of recordings make sound recordings vulnerable to exposure to a vast 
audience through the initial sale of only a potential handful of 
records. Since digital technology permits the making of virtually 
flawless copies of the
 original work transmitted, a potential depression of sales is clearly 
threatened, particularly when the copyright owner cannot control public 
performance of the work. And new technologies such as audio on demand 
and pay-per-listen will permit instant access to music, thus negating 
even the need to make a copy.

  But, Mr. President, even if this economic argument were not 
persuasive, fairness and responsible copyright policy nonetheless 
dictate the recognition of the rights embodied in today's bill. As the 
Copyright Office has noted:

       Even if the widespread dissemination by satellite and 
     digital means does not depress sales of records, the authors 
     and copyright owners of sound recordings are unfairly 
     deprived by existing law of their fair share of the market 
     for performance of their works.

(Report on Copyright Implications of Digital Audio Transmission 
Services, Oct. 1991, pp. 156-157).
  Mr. President, the bill that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing 
today is about fairness, plain and simple. Unless Congress is prepared 
to create a hierarchy of artists based on a theory of rewarding some 
forms of creativity but not others, it must adopt a policy of 
nondiscrimination among artists. This should be true whether we are 
tempted to discriminate among artists based on the content of their 
creations, based on the nature of the works created, or based on the 
medium in which the works are made available to the public.
  For too long, American law has tolerated an irrational discrimination 
against the creators of sound recordings. Every other copyrighted work 
that is capable of performance--including plays, operas, ballets, 
films, and pantomimes--is entitled to the performance right. It is 
denied only for sound recordings.
  It is frankly difficult, Mr. President, to understand the historical 
failure to accord to the creators of sound recordings the rights seen 
as fundamental to other creators. I acknowledge that in other nations 
some have advanced the theory that copyright protection should not 
extend to sound recordings. This theory is based on the view that the 
act of embodying a musical work on a disc or tape is more an act of 
technical recordation than a creative enterprise. But, this has not 
been the American view, nor the view of most nations with advanced 
copyright systems. Since 1971, Congress has clearly recognized sound 
recordings as works entitled to copyright on an equal basis with all 
other works.
  Thus, the joint authors of sound recordings--those who produce them 
and those who perform on them--must be seen as creators fully entitled 
to those rights of reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and public 
performance that all other authors enjoy. It is, I believe, no longer 
possible to deny the true creative work of the producers of sound 
recordings. While few are so well known as their stage and film 
counterparts, there are significant exceptions. In the field of 
operatic recording alone, one could cite legendary figures such as 
Walter Legge, Richard Mohr, or John Culshaw. As the ``New Grove 
Dictionary of Opera'' states with reference to the latter's landmark 
Wagner recordings of the 1950's, ``Mr. Culshaw's great achievement was 
to develop the concept of opera recording as an art form distinct from 
live performance.'' (Vol. I, p. 1026; Macmillan Press, 1992). The 
events referred to occurred over 30 years ago, yet American law still 
fails fully to recognize the sound recording as an art form entitled to 
the full range of copyright protections enjoyed by live performances.
  Similarly, the unique creative input of the performing artist as a 
joint author cannot be casually discounted as a proper subject of 
copyright protection. It has been said that the recording industry was 
almost single-handedly launched by the public demand for one 
performer's renditions of works largely in the public domain. Indeed, 
Enrico Caruso's recordings from the early years of this century are 
almost all still in print today. To take a more contemporary example, 
it could be noted that Willie Nelson authored a country music standard 
when he composed ``Crazy,'' a song he has also recorded. But, Patsy 
Cline made the song a classic, by her inimitable performance of it.
  It should be carefully noted, Mr. President, that today's bill is, 
frankly, compromise legislation. It does not seek to create a full 
performance right in sound recordings, a right that would extend to the 
more common analog mode of recording. Also, the digital right that the 
bill does create is limited to subscription transmissions. Other public 
performances of digital recordings are still exempted from the public 
performance right that the bill would create.
  I believe that these major limitations on the rights that we seek to 
create today will limit as much as possible the dislocations and 
alterations of prevailing contractual arrangements in the music and 
broadcasting industries. I am sure I speak for Senator Feinstein as 
well when I say that we are open to the consideration of additional 
means of ensuring that this bill does not have unintended consequences 
for other copyright owners, be they songwriters, music publishers, 
broadcasters, or others.
  [[Page S949]] Mr. President, while today's bill is landmark 
legislation, it should also be noted that the bill only proposes to 
give the creators of sound recordings something approaching the minimum 
rights that more than 60 countries already give their creators. In so 
doing, the legislation should also have extremely beneficial 
consequences in the international sphere by strengthening America's 
bargaining position as it continues to campaign for strong levels of 
protection for all forms of intellectual property and by allowing 
American copyright owners to access foreign royalty pools that 
currently deny distributions of performance royalties to American 
creators due to the lack of a reciprocal right in the United States.
  The absence of a performance right undoubtedly, hindered the efforts 
of United States trade negotiators in addressing matters such as the 
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] and 
will continue to hinder the current efforts of the World Intellectual 
Property Organization to develop a new instrument to settle the rights 
of producers and performers of sound recordings. In each instance, U.S. 
negotiators have been faced with the argument from our trading partners 
that the United States cannot expect other countries to provide 
increased protection when U.S. law is itself inadequate.
  Furthermore, in many countries that do provide performance rights for 
sound recordings, there is often a refusal to share any collected 
royalties with American artists and record companies for the public 
performance of their recordings in those foreign countries. This is 
based on the argument that these rights should be recognized only on a 
reciprocal basis. For as long as foreign artists receive no royalties 
for the public performance of their works in the United States, 
American artists will continue to receive no royalties for the 
performance of American works in those foreign countries that insist on 
reciprocity.
  The royalty pools we are talking about here, Mr. President, are, in 
fact, considerable. The Recording Industry Association of America has 
estimated that in 1992 American recording artists and musicians were 
excluded from royalty pools that distributed performance royalties in 
excess of $120 million. It is likely that this figure has increased in 
recent years and will continue to grow.
  The insistance of certain foreign nations on reciprocity of rights as 
a condition to the receipt of performance royalties is inconsistent 
with the fundamental obligation of those nations to provide national 
treatment under the Berne Convention on the Protection of Literacy and 
Artistic Property or under the Rome Convention for the Protection of 
Performers, Producers of Phonograms, and Broadcasting Organizations. It 
is nonetheless an economic fact of life that seriously disadvantages 
American producers and performers and therefore must be dealt with. If 
passed, the Performance Rights in Sound Recordings Act should make it 
more likely that Americans who are entitled to royalties from foreign 
performances will be able to recover those funds. Thus, the direct 
economic benefits to be derived from the legislation are considerable.
  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, for joining me again this year in 
introducing this important legislation and for drawing our attention to 
the significant economic consequences involved.
 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am joining my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch of Utah, to introduce once again the Digital Performance Rights 
in Sound Recordings Act. Just as the version on which we collaborated 
last year did, this bill will--for the first time--provide recording 
companies and musical artists with the same protection under copyright 
law already enjoyed by songwriters and composers with respect to the 
performance of digital sound recordings.
  Senator Hatch and I introduced similar language in the last Congress 
for the express purpose of beginning in earnest the debate over how to 
redress the current imbalance in copyright law. I'm very pleased that, 
although time did not permit final congressional action on the bill 
last year, virtually all of the affected industries accepted our 
invitation--and that extended by former Congressman Hughes--to fully 
explore the complicated legal and commercial issues presented by 
technology's inevitable advance.
  Mr. Hughes, then chair of the House's Subcommittee on Intellectual 
Property and Judicial Administration, organized two highly effective 
roundtables that brought cable, broadcast, satellite, restaurant, and 
music industry leaders together with other copyright holder and labor 
organizations. I also met at great length with many of those principals 
last February, as did Chairman Hatch and his staff on many, many 
occasions. These efforts, I am pleased to say, produced a sweeping 
agreement on most major aspects of this issue last May.
  That agreement provided the framework for the bill we have introduced 
today. This legislation creates a digital public performance right in 
sound recordings that is applicable to transmissions for which 
subscribers are charged a fee. Most of these transmissions are subject 
to statutory licensing, at rates to be negotiated, or if necessary, 
arbitrated. However, interactive services remain subject to an 
exclusive right, in keeping with the bill as originally introduced last 
Congress. The bill contains protections for licensing of copyrighted 
works in vertically integrated companies and contains language to make 
clear that the new performance right does not impair any of the other 
copyright rights under existing law.
  Ditigal technology, and the industries built around its use to 
distribute sound recordings, have evolved and advanced dramatically in 
the 17 months since this legislation was first introduced, Mr. 
President. The need to keep America's copyright law current, therefore, 
has only become more acute.
  Accordingly, I believe that this Congress has not merely an 
opportunity, but a responsibility, to build on the tremendous 
bipartisan strides made last year by expeditiously considering, 
amending if need be, and passing the bill that Senator Hatch and I have 
introduced today.
  For those who have not reviewed this issue since the last Congress or 
are new to it, let me briefly review the principal reasons to adopt 
this legislation:
  First, it is the fair thing to do. Owners of almost every type of 
copyrighted work--movies, books, plays, magazines, advertising, and 
artwork, for example--have the exclusive right to authorize the public 
performance of their copyrighted work. Sound recordings, and the 
artists and companies that make them, however, have no such performance 
right.
  Accordingly, when a song is played over the radio, or, as is 
increasingly the case, over a new digital audio cable service, the 
artist who sings the song, the musicians and backup singers, and the 
record company whose investment made the recording possible have no 
legal right to control or to receive compensation for this public 
performance of their work.
  The artists who made the music, and the companies that underwrote its 
production and promotion, don't see a dime of the revenue realized by 
the ditigal transmitter. And, without a right of public performance for 
sound recordings by means of digital transmissions, they will not. That 
is just not fair, and this inequity will not be corrected unless and 
until this legislation is passed.
  Second, the advent of digital technology and the emergence of a whole 
new industry to distribute them directly to the home make prompt 
protection of artists and record companies critical.
  Let me explain why. Ordinary, or analog, radio signals are waves and, 
as such, they vary in strength and break down over distance. That 
breakdown greatly diminishes sound quality.
  In the past, therefore, the sale of comparatively high-quality 
recordings on cassette tapes and record albums was not jeopardized by 
the casual home recording of music played over the radio. The quality 
of home recording over-the-air simply did not compare with what a 
record or tape sounded like over a home stereo system.
  Today, however, the same technology that has given us compact discs 
now allows perfect reproductions of music to be digitized--turned into 
computer ones and zeros--that can be sent by 
[[Page S950]] satellite or over cable TV wires around the globe, and 
reassembled into concert hall quality music in our homes. Predictably, 
and quite legally, this quantum leap in sound technology has had a 
revolutionary impact on the way that music is marketed.
  New subscription digital audio services have sprung up in cities, 
towns, and rural communities across the country. For a modest monthly 
fee, they deliver multiple channels of CD-quality music to customers in 
their homes--primarily through subscribers' cable TV wiring.
  Other companies are experimenting with similar services to be 
provided through home computers, or more sophisticated systems that 
will permit the customer at home to custom-order whatever music he or 
she would like to hear and record. Although it is extremely time-
consuming to download a CD today, soon compression technology and high-
speed transmission will permit virtual instantaneous access. All one 
will need is a modem.
  As the market is now configured, however, these companies need merely 
go to a local record store, buy a single copy of a compact disc which 
they can then transmit for a fee to tens of thousands, potentially 
millions, of subscribers. Because our copyright law is behind the 
technological times, record companies and recording artists do not see 
a penny of compensation from even one of those thousands of 
performances.
  It is thus no exaggeration to say, that, without the change in 
copyright law proposed today, these wonderful new services have the 
potential to put the current recording industry out of business. Why 
travel to a store to buy a record, tape, or compact disc when you can 
get the same, or custom-tailored musical packages, in your living room 
at the touch of a button?
  Frankly, that would be a tolerable evolution of the marketplace if 
artists and record companies were compensated for the use of their 
sound recordings by the new digital transmission services and on-line 
and interactive services. Right now, however, because of skewed 
copyright law, that is not the way the market works.
  Neither Senator Hatch nor I suggest that digital audio services 
should not be able to operate just as they do now to bring top-quality 
digital signals to American homes. Our bill does insist, however, that 
such services not be able to take advantage of a redressable gap in our 
copyright laws to avoid compensating record companies and artists 
fairly.
  Third, copyright experts have consistently urged Congress to create a 
right of public performance in sound recordings.
  The U.S. Copyright Office has recommended since 1978 that a 
performance right in sound recordings be granted in all public 
performances, not just digital transmissions, and recently reiterated 
the urgency of the need for such reform created by the advent of 
digital audio technology. Indeed, the Copyright Office testified before 
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial 
Administration in the last Congress, urgently calling for enactment of 
such legislation.
  In addition, the administration's working group on intellectual 
property rights of the information infrastructure task force, in its 
preliminary draft report, recently wrote:

       * * * the lack of a public performance right in sound 
     recordings under U.S. law is an historical anomaly that does 
     not have a strong policy justification--and certainly not a 
     legal one.

  The report also reiterated the administration's support for the bill 
that Senator Hatch and I introduced in the 103d Congress and for H.R. 
2575, its House counterpart introduced by Representatives William 
Hughes and Howard Berman.
  It is time to heed these expert calls.
  Fourth, taking the experts' advice also will help U.S. trade 
negotiators obtain greater protection for American copyright holders 
overseas than they are now able to demand.
  More than 60 countries around the world extend similar rights to 
producers and their artists, and have for many years. American 
negotiators' efforts to obtain protection for our own companies and 
artists have been hampered, as they have said repeatedly,by our 
inability to reciprocate. It is long past time to provide our trade 
representatives with this valuable bargaining chip.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to reiterate that the legislation we 
are introducing today is no different in intent than S. 1421, although 
the content is somewhat different. We have attempted to continue the 
work of the last Congress. Furthermore, we are introducing this 
legislation in the same spirit with which last year's bill was 
submitted. Chairman Hatch and I want to continue to work closely with 
all the affected industries to make this as strong and properly 
tailored a piece of legislation as possible.
  We are standing at the cusp of an exciting digital age. Technological 
advances, however, must not come at the expense of American creators of 
intellectual property. This country's artists, musicians, and 
businesses that bring them to us are truly among our greatest cultural 
assets. This bill recognizes the important contribution that they make 
and provides protection for their creative works, both at home and 
abroad.
  I am once again very pleased to be working with Senator Hatch to 
correct an increasingly dangerous and inappropriate imbalance in our 
Nation's copyright laws.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Helms, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        McCain, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Hatfield):
  S. 230. A bill to prohibit United States assistance to countries that 
prohibit or restrict the transport or delivery of United States 
humanitarian assistance; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                     Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly today to reintroduce 
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. I am joined again by the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, in addition to the 
following cosponsors: Senator McCain, Senator D'Amato, Senator Kennedy, 
and Senator Gramm. In my view, our legislation will further an 
important American foreign policy objective: to facilitate the prompt 
delivery of humanitarian aid. This would be achieved by establishing 
the principle that if a government obstructs humanitarian aid to other 
countries, it should not receive U.S. assistance. It seems to me that 
this is a principle that could be readily accepted by everyone. Very 
simply, our legislation would prohibit U.S. foreign assistance to 
countries which prohibit or impede the delivery or transport of U.S. 
humanitarian assistance to other countries. It makes a lot of sense to 
me.
  The intended effect of this legislation is to ensure the efficient 
and timely delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to people in need. 
It will help deter interference with humanitarian relief, as well as 
provide for the appropriate response in the event of interference or 
obstructionism.
  Mr. President, our legislation would be universally applicable--the 
Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act does not single out any one country. It 
would apply to all relief situations. Currently, however, there is one 
country that would clearly be affected. Turkey continues to receive 
large amounts of assistance in the form of grants and concessional 
loans financed by the American taxpayer while at the same time, it is 
enforcing an immoral blockade of Armenia. As a result, outside relief 
supplies must travel circuitous routes, thereby greatly increasing the 
cost of delivery. Moreover, many supplies never make it at all. This 
same blockade prevents
 care packages from the American Red Cross from entering Armenia, as an 
example.

  In sum, United States aid to Armenia is far less effective and much 
more expensive because of Turkey's blockade. More importantly, 
Armenians freeze and go Hungry as a result of actions taken by the 
Turkish Government. The delivery of humanitarian assistance to aid 
those in need, like the Armenians--is consistent with the fundamental 
values of our Nation. This legislation will strengthen our ability to 
deliver such assistance which is an important component of our foreign 
policy.
  Let me repeat, this bill does not name names. The legislation could 
apply to many other relief operations. 
[[Page S951]] Indeed the United States conducts relief operations 
around the world, operations that depend on the cooperation of other 
countries. I recognize that Turkey has been a valuable ally in Nato and 
recently in Operation Desert Storm.
  Mr. President, this legislation recognizes that there may be a 
compelling U.S. National Security interest which would override the 
principle of noninterference with Humanitarian aid. For this reason, 
U.S. foreign aid to nations in violation of this act may be continued 
if the president determines that such assistance is in the National 
Security Interest of the United States.
  Mr. President, it does not make sense to me to offer U.S. taxpayer 
dollars unconditionally to countries that hinder our humantiarian 
relief efforts. In light of budgetary constraints, it is imperative 
that U.S. relief efforts be timely and efficient. The bottom line is 
that countries that prevent the delivery of such assistance, or 
intentionally increase the cost of delivering such assistance, do not 
deserve unrestricted American assistance.
  Mr. President, this legislation will be referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations where I hope it will get rapid and positive 
consideration and a good rapid hearing. Similar legislation will be 
introduced in the House. I hope that Congress will quickly enact this 
legislation and send it to the White House for approval.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  We are just simply saying if a country blocks humanitarian aid, they 
do not get any assistance. It seems to me that it is pretty hard to 
dispute that argument or come to any other conclusion, notwithstanding, 
as I said, the fact that Turkey has been an ally.
  I would hope that Turkish officials would take another look and make 
it easier for people in Armenia to receive humanitarian assistance from 
the United States.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 230

       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 ``Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Federal budget deficit and spending 
     constraints require the maximum efficiency in the usage of 
     United States foreign assistance.
       (2) The delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in 
     need is consistent with the fundamental values of our Nation 
     and is an important component of United States foreign 
     policy.
       (3) As a matter of principle and in furtherance of fiscal 
     prudence, the United States should seek to promote the 
     delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in need in a 
     manner that is both timely and cost effective.
       (4) Recipients of United States assistance should not 
     hinder or delay the transport or delivery of United States 
     humanitarian assistance to other countries.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES THAT RESTRICT 
                   THE TRANSPORT OR DELIVERY OF UNITED STATES 
                   HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Prohibition on Assistance.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for United States assistance may not be made 
     available for any country whose government prohibits or 
     otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or 
     delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.
       (b) Waiver.--The prohibition on United States assistance 
     contained in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President 
     determines and notifies Congress in writing that providing 
     such assistance to a country is in the national security 
     interest of the United States.
       (c) Resumption of Assistance.--A suspension or termination 
     of United States assistance for any country under subsection 
     (a) shall cease to be effective when the President certifies 
     in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that such 
     country is no longer prohibiting or otherwise restricting, 
     either directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of 
     United States humanitarian assistance.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--At the time of the annual budget 
     submission to Congress, the President shall submit a report 
     to Congress describing any information available to the 
     President concerning prohibitions or restrictions, direct or 
     indirect, on the transport or delivery of United States 
     humanitarian assistance by the government of any country 
     receiving or eligible to receive United States foreign 
     assistance during the current or preceding fiscal year.
       (b) Applicability of Law.--The President shall include in 
     the report required by subsection (a) a statement as to 
     whether the prohibition in section 3(a) is being applied to 
     each country for which the President has information 
     available to him concerning prohibitions or restrictions, 
     direct or indirect, on the transport or delivery of United 
     States humanitarian assistance.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``United States assistance'' 
     has the same meaning given that term in section 481(e)(4) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Dole, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. McCain, Mr. Mack, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Heflin, 
        Mr. Simpson, Mr. Coats, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Cochran, 
        and Mr. Robb):
  S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution naming the CVN-76 aircraft carrier 
as the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan; to the Committee on Armed Services.


               U.S.S. ``RONALD REAGAN'' AIRCRAFT CARRIER

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution and ask 
that it be referred to the appropriate committee.
  The joint resolution I am introducing today was developed with the 
help and guidance of the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John W. 
Warner. Senator Warner and I separately came up with this idea and we 
joined forces to put this resolution together. In addition, Senators 
Dole, Thurmond, Craig, Smith, McCain, Mack, Lott, Nickles, Hutchison, 
Inhofe, Santorum, Feinstein, Cochran, Kyl, Simpson, Coats, and Heflin 
have jointed Senator Warner and I as cosponsors of this joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution Senator Warner and I are introducing today will 
direct that the aircraft carrier approved and funded by the last 
Congress, known heretofore as CVN-76, shall be named the U.S.S. Ronald 
Reagan. I can think of no better tribute to our Nation's 40th 
President.
  In 1980, Ronald Wilson Reagan was elected the 40th President of the 
United States of America. After campaigning on a platform dedicated to 
peace through strength, President Reagan initiated policies to rebuild 
and strengthen America's military power. As a result of the so-called 
Reagan build up, President Reagan was able to negotiate the first true 
nuclear arms reduction agreements, the INF Treaty and the START I 
accord, with the Soviet Union.
  President Reagan also enacted policies to promote democracy and 
challenge Soviet-style communism around the world. In fact, the policy 
of challenging communism with democracy was given a name, it was called 
the Reagan doctrine. As a result of the Reagan doctrine, freedom 
fighters in nations such as Afghanistan and Nicaragua were able to 
escape the grip of Communist tyranny.
  As Commander in Chief, President Reagan never forgot the men and 
women who volunteer to wear the uniform of the United States of 
America. Indeed, President Reagan's policies and actions restored the 
respect given to American military personnel around the world.
  President Reagan served his Nation for 2 terms with unmatched style 
and grace. After his first term in office, an appreciative nation 
reelected President Reagan with a 49-State landslide. Throughout his 8 
years as President, no one served as a more dignified, nor proud, 
representative of the United States than Ronald Reagan.
  I think it entirely appropriate that CVN-76 be named the U.S.S. 
Ronald Reagan because of our 40th President's steadfast commitment to a 
robust Navy, strong Armed Forces and a global U.S. military presence. I 
believe that the sight of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan patroling the high 
seas to defend America's interest will serve as a fitting tribute to 
the man who reminded his fellow countrymen, and the world, that 
America's best days are yet to come.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will take the time to look at the 
proposed joint resolution and I look forward to bringing this joint 
resolution to the Senate floor. I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Warner's letter to President Clinton, and 
[[Page S952]] my letter to the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable 
John Dalton, regarding this proposal be entered into the Record. I also 
want to once again thank Senator John Warner for his much appreciated 
cooperation and assistance in this joint effort.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1993.
     Hon. John Dalton,
     Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary Dalton: As you know, the Fiscal Year 1994 
     Defense Appropriation Act provided $1.2 billion to begin 
     construction of the next aircraft carrier (CVN-76). Once this 
     ship is authorized, I assume construction of this vessel will 
     begin.
       I am writing to urge you to name CVN-76 in honor of former 
     President Ronald Reagan. I believe the ``USS Ronald Reagan'' 
     would be a fitting tribute to the man who played a key role 
     in winning the Cold War. Whatever one's political views, 
     President Reagan's commitment to ``peace through strength'' 
     and his dedication to the men and women in our armed forces 
     cannot be denied. I am confident that the American people and 
     the Congress would strongly support this tribute to our 40th 
     president.
       I hope we can discuss the name of CVN-76 sometime in the 
     future. I look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,
                                                 December 9, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Yesterday the Department of the Navy 
     finalized the principle contract for constructing America's 
     newest nuclear aircraft carrier, CVN76.
       Several ships of this class proudly bear the names of our 
     Nation's former Presidents.
       As you will soon be selecting a name for the ship, I 
     respectfully urge you to consider designating it ``USS Ronald 
     Reagan.''
       The first mission of these carriers is to deter aggression 
     against our Nation's security interest and that of our 
     allies.
       President Reagan was the principle architect of America's 
     defense and foreign policy during the period which not only 
     deterred aggression from communist adversaries, but also laid 
     the foundation for the decline and ultimate demise of 
     European communist Nations.
       The ``USS Ronald Reagan,'' as she sails the seven seas to 
     deter future aggression, will serve as a symbol of America's 
     role, together with other nations of the free world in 
     successfully defeating communism.
       With kind regards, I am
           Respectfully,
                                                      John Warner.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor, I rise today to 
express my full support for the joint resolution introduced by Senator 
Kempthorne which would name the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, CVN-76, 
the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.
  Throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's, the United States 
boasted the strongest military in the world--unmatched in the quality 
of its people, weapons, munitions, and equipment. The nucleus of that 
force remains today and, with some focused hard work, we will continue 
to be the world's foremost military power.
  Our preeminent military force did not simply evolve, however. It was 
methodically built utilizing foresight, dedication and a lot of hard 
work by a lot of devoted people. One individual, however, stands above 
all others as the principal architect and master builder of our strong 
military, and that individual is Ronald Reagan.
  President Reagan often quoted George Washington's maxim that ``To be 
prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the 
peace.'' Throughout his time in office he followed that maxim, provided 
us with a clear vision of what a powerful American military should be 
and then tirelessly worked to assure that the force was built. His 
efforts guaranteed peace through strength.
  President Reagan inherited a military that was not at the level of 
readiness required of a superpower. Recall that when he was elected, 52 
Americans were being held hostage in Iran. The previous April, a 
military effort to rescue those hostages had ended in tragedy and 
failure at a place called Desert 1. The Iranian hostage situation and 
the debacle at Desert 1 reflected a country whose respect within the 
world community had eroded and a military whose members were 
undertrained, less than adequately equipped when compared to their 
potential adversaries, and generally dispirited.
  Ronald Reagan pulled America out of that dilemma. On August 20, 1981, 
the old ex-horse cavalryman, as he often referred to himself, set the 
tone for his 8 years in office when he made the following statement to 
the crew of the aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Constellation:

       I know there've been times when the military has been taken 
     for granted. It won't happen under this administration * * *. 
     Providing security for the United States is the greatest 
     challenge and a greater challenge than ever, but we'll meet 
     that challenge * * *. Let friend and foe alike know that 
     America has the muscle to back up its words * * *.

  During Ronald Reagan's tenure in office, he held true to that 
statement. His vision led to the creation of the most technologically 
superior military in the world. Moreover, increased pay and benefits 
for our people in uniform, something that President Reagan so strongly 
advocated and relentlessly pushed for, resulted in the recruitment and 
retention of the highest quality people who have ever served in the 
military. Perhaps even more significantly, President Reagan's strong 
leadership as the Commander in Chief instilled in the American people, 
and in the world community, a renewed high level of respect for our 
Armed Forces while at the same time restoring the confidence of our 
military people, making them believe that they are members of an 
honorable profession, performing a vital service to their Nation.
  CVN-76 will be our ninth Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft 
carrier. One is named the U.S.S. United States. The other seven 
currently in service or being built are named after people who made 
great contributions to the American military--either leading forces in 
battle, serving as President during war or working during times of 
peace to assure the continued strength of the American military and the 
security of the United States. The Theodore Roosevelt, in particular, 
honors a President who built the Great White Fleet and sailed it around 
the world to proclaim America as a naval power and an emerging 
international economic power.
  Ronald Reagan's service to our Nation merits his taking a rightful 
place alongside those other great Americans who have been honored by 
having Nimitz class aircraft carriers named after them. Like Theodore 
Roosevelt, President Reagan built a military that announced to the 
world that the United States is, once again, a great power. And like 
Roosevelt, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower, 
Ronald Reagan is a great leader whose vision and guidance have taken 
us, as a nation, to new heights of strength and respect among the other 
nations of the world.
  The primary mission of CVN-76 will be to deter aggression against our 
Nation's security interests and those of our allies. As such, it should 
bear a name which reflects audacity and decisiveness as well as the 
respect which we trust our allies and potential adversaries alike will 
hold for it and the Nation it represents. I can think of no name for 
this vessel which would be more appropriate than that of the individual 
who designed, built, and led the world's most potent military force in 
the 1980's: Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. President, I believe my colleagues will agree that naming CVN-76, 
a ship that will assure peace through strength, the U.S.S. Ronald 
Reagan will be both an enhancement of Navy traditions and a fitting 
tribute to a most deserving former Commander in Chief. I strongly urge 
adoption of this joint resolution.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to endorse this proposal to 
name the next aircraft carrier, CVN-76, the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. I 
believe this would be a fitting tribute to a great man and a great 
President.
  Ronald Reagan was elected the 40th President of the United States on 
November 4, 1980. Central to President Reagan's agenda was the defeat 
of communism and the rebirth of America as a ``beacon of hope for those 
who do not have freedom.'' He therefore made the buildup of the 
Nation's Armed Forces, which began under President Carter, his No. 1 
budget priority.
  Two defensive weapon systems, in particular, have become synonymous 
with the Reagan administration. First 
[[Page S953]] and foremost is the strategic defense initiative, which 
the President announced in his historic 1983 address to the Nation. It 
was the work of scientists and engineers in Huntsville and California 
that convinced President Reagan to endorse research on missile 
defenses, and I am proud of the leadership role that Huntsville has 
continued to play in this regard.
  The second weapon system associated with the Reagan administration 
was the MX missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile was the 
cornerstone of our ICBM modernization program and it, together with 
SDI, can be credited with convincing the Soviets to begin serious arms 
control talks. In fact, by the end of the Reagan's second term the 
START talks has begun and we had signed the Intermediate Nuclear Force 
[INF] Treaty which eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles. It 
should be noted that the INF Treaty led to the first actual reduction 
of nuclear missiles in history.
  In retrospect, many credit the Reagan arms buildup with the eventual 
bankruptcy and collapse of the Soviet Union. While I believe the main 
causes of the collapse were the inherent flaws of communism, the arms 
race certainly played a major role and the President does deserve 
praise for his steadfast commitment.
  In his own words, Ronald Reagan's hope was to ``go down in history as 
the President who made Americans believe in themselves again.'' He was 
successful. He reminded us of our glorious past, that we were in a 
nation founded on the principles of freedom and democracy. He took 
world leadership on the issues of the day and reassured us we were 
still the greatest nation on earth. Finally, through his philosophy of 
peace through strength, he held the forces of communism at bay and set 
the ground work for their eventual defeat, giving us new hope in the 
future.
  Mr. President, aircraft carriers are the pride of the U.S. Navy and 
are floating symbols of our national strength and conviction. Five 
times before we have named an aircraft carrier after a President, with 
the last being the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan also deserves 
this honor. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this tribute to President Reagan.


                          ____________________