[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.
____________________