[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4435-S4441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2036. A bill to condition the use of appropriated funds for the 
purpose of an orderly and honorable reduction of U.S. ground forces 
from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


                    the bosnia force realignment act

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today, on behalf 
of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself, is 
an attempt to reduce the American portion of the NATO deployment to 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. It does so in a carefully staged manner over 
the next 2 years, going from the administration-planned force size of 
6,900 ground troops at the end of this June, to 2,500 troops in 
February, 2000. In the interim, the amendment calls for a force size of 
5,000 U.S. troops to be arrived at by February 1999, and 3,500 by July 
1999.
  This is a gradual drawdown to a level which more accurately 
approximates the size of the forces of France and Germany at this time. 
The United States would continue to honor its commitment to NATO to 
play an appropriate role in the Bosnia stabilization force, but the 
amendment provides

[[Page S4436]]

crucial leverage on our allies in Europe to assume the leadership role 
that is appropriate for them in an operation near their borders in 
Europe.
  The current plan by the administration, including the requirement for 
meeting a series of general benchmarks in the areas of democratization, 
an independent press and judiciary, and other reforms, could keep the 
United States with the leading force in Bosnia for an indefinite 
period. I do not believe the American people will support the 
proposition of a semi-permanent deployment with no end-game. 
Nevertheless, this year, for the first time, the President has said 
that there is no definite end-game, or exit schedule which he would 
propose. Thus, the pressure is off our allies to pick up more of the 
leading role, and our allies are perfectly content to keep the United 
States spending some $1.8 billion per year on this operation, in 
addition to the funds we contribute to NATO on an annual basis.
  My good friend from the state of Michigan, the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, has also been concerned over the 
permanent nature of the American deployment and the lack of leadership 
being displayed by our European partners. He has offered a proposal, as 
a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill, which was approved 
by the conference committee on that bill, to urge the President to 
reach an agreement on the deadlines for closure on the various 
benchmarks in the President's report. This is a good amendment by Mr. 
Levin, and it is a very good starting point, and I am supportive of it, 
but I am afraid that it does not contain the kind of pressure that 
would cause the administration to act decisively with our allies on the 
matter of sharing the burden of leadership in Bosnia. I do not think 
that the Levin amendment, which, as I say, I strongly support, goes far 
enough.
  The administration seems not to work very effectively, except under 
the pressure of explicit deadlines and an explicit schedule with 
specific numbers, dates, and goals. This specificity is provided by the 
amendment which Mrs. Hutchison and I presently intend to offer to the 
fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense authorization bill when it comes 
to the floor. I hope that my colleagues will have a careful look at the 
details of the amendment. I believe that it deserves strong bipartisan 
support. It is a responsible approach, and it provides the time and the 
impetus for our allies to get their acts together and begin to take 
responsibility for the peace of the European Continent. The United 
States will continue to play an important supporting role in this 
effort, but I hope we will begin to wean our allies from the 
overdependence upon the United States that they currently exhibit.
  Reports over the last few days on the very disturbing developments in 
the Serbian province of Kosovo need the focus of the Senate and the 
administration and of all Americans. These events demonstrate my point. 
We may well have a catastrophe in the making, and the question of 
heading off, or at least containing ethnic unrest in Kosovo must be 
addressed by the administration, as well as by NATO. I don't see any 
evidence that the administration is moving in the direction of 
providing that kind of address. There may be steps that we need to take 
right now to prepare for worst-case eventualities. The administration 
needs to inform the Senate in detail on its policy regarding the 
possible scenarios involving the situation in Kosovo.
  The amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and myself does provide 
that the forces which we move out of Bosnia proper can be redeployed to 
the periphery of that troubled region--into Hungary, for instance, and 
particularly into Macedonia, in an effort to demonstrate to the Serbs 
and other parties that NATO will not stand for the spreading of the 
ethnic conflict beyond the borders of Bosnia and Serbia. But the spread 
of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo is a separate issue which must be 
addressed by the administration, and I hope that the administration 
will get busy and give us just such an address. Everything possible 
should be done to forestall a spread of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo. 
Bosnia and its violent disposition must be contained and must not be 
allowed to infect the rest of Europe. We cannot countenance the spread 
of the ethnic violence into the southern Balkans, and we must do 
everything that we can to forestall the involvement of Greece and 
Turkey in future instabilities caused by the Bosnia and Kosovo 
situations.
  The reduction in U.S. forces over a two-year period arranges a sure 
but gentle glidepath during which a reconfiguration of the composition 
of allied forces can be accomplished without opening up vulnerabilities 
for U.S. forces or causing uncertainties on the part of Serbian 
elements as to the staying power of NATO, while Bosnian unrest remains 
a threat to the peace of the continent. Yet, history must move in 
Europe, and the role of leadership on the ground, through the presence 
of American armies, must transition to one where a healthier balance of 
responsibility is created. This transition is especially important in 
light of the recent developments in Kosovo. In the long run, in an era 
where new states are being incorporated into NATO, and new practices of 
consensus-building and peacekeeping must be developed among the states 
of the alliance, Europe must begin to get a surer grasp of its own 
destiny through a spirit of close cooperation among its European NATO 
partners.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will review the details of 
the amendment, and will choose to co-sponsor it.
  Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk on behalf of the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself and I ask 
that the title be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill to condition the use of appropriated funds for the 
     purpose of an orderly and honorable reduction of U.S. ground 
     forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas and I 
expect this bill to be referred to the appropriate committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be appropriately referred.
  Mr. BYRD. As of now, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of whatever 
time I would have had to Mrs. Hutchison, that she may add it to the 
amount of time that she would have had under the request.
  Let me express my appreciation for her cosponsorship of this 
amendment. She will work hard on its behalf as I will, and I feel 
honored and fortunate to have her as cosponsor of the bill. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, how much time is left on our amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I want to say how pleased I am to be working with my 
colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, who was honored last 
night on the Senate floor for having cast the most number of votes of 
any Senator in the history of our country--15,000. It was quite 
awesome. I am pleased to have someone of his stature and experience to 
take the lead on this very important act that we hope the Senate will 
pass in the form of an amendment to the defense authorization bill, or 
failing that, the appropriations bill, because it is time that Congress 
step up to the line and fulfill its constitutional responsibility for 
allocating the military dollars.
  Mr. President, as the senior Senator from West Virginia has stated, 
our bill will begin the orderly and honorable withdrawal of U.S. ground 
forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  U.S. forces in Bosnia have accomplished the military mission assigned 
to them. They were sent to enforce the Dayton peace accords by keeping 
the warring factions separated. We all owe our troops a debt of 
gratitude for having done this with no combat loss of life to any 
American.
  I have just returned this weekend from my seventh trip to the 
Balkans. I saw a well-trained professional force capable of performing 
any mission that we would give them as long as we give them the support 
they need. But I also saw a force on a mission with no clear direction 
and certainly no exit strategy. It has no end date. These troops

[[Page S4437]]

have been spending more and more time away from home than at any other 
point in their careers.
  The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground forces in 
Bosnia is subject to the oversight authority of Congress. When we 
narrowly voted to support this mission in 1995, I voted against it 
because I was afraid what would happen is exactly what is happening. We 
are now in an open-ended mission. This was not supposed to be an open-
ended mission. It was supposed to be a 1-year commitment. That deadline 
was missed and the next deadline was missed.
  It is very important that we have an exit strategy. The Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have said an exit 
strategy and an exit date is most important if we are not going to have 
mission creep. But, in fact, what I fear is that we do have mission 
creep in Bosnia, and as a matter of fact, we also have deadline creep.
  NATO forces have increased their participation in police activities, 
something for which they are not trained. General Joulwan has said our 
military forces are not trained for police missions, and yet that is 
what they are doing more and more.
  U.S. commanders in NATO have stated on several occasions that, in 
accordance with the Dayton peace accords, the principal responsibility 
for law enforcement rests with the parties to the Dayton agreement--the 
Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims.
  In a recent letter to Congress, President Clinton identified a host 
of additional missions that seem to go well beyond the peacekeeping 
scope of the U.S. forces in Bosnia and are aimed really at nation-
building. These include--and I quote from his letter-- ``supporting * * 
* the conduct of elections and the installation of elected officials,'' 
and ``supporting * * * media reform efforts.''
  During our recent trip we were briefed that establishing a rule of 
law and a judiciary were also among the criteria that must be 
established prior to our troops' withdrawal.
  Mr. President, these are goals that could take 50 years to achieve, 
and they define a mission without an exit strategy. I would just say 
that the distinguished Senator who is presiding at this moment was also 
in the meetings we had in Bosnia this weekend. I think I speak for all 
of us who were there in saying that what we were told about an end date 
is a recipe for a mission with no exit strategy. Congress has had 
little to say, as the President has authorized an ever-longer 
commitment of troops for an ever-growing number of missions.

  I believe that exceeds the war power authority of the President, 
although this is debatable and I cannot say that it is totally clear. 
But while the Constitution leaves some issues unsettled regarding war 
powers, there is no such conflict over the power of the purse. The 
Congress alone has the power. We have the responsibility to provide the 
money for our military and to look at the big picture.
  The big picture, Mr. President, is that our troops are being flung 
around the world in police missions and peacekeeping missions, and we 
are losing the edge that a superpower must have to be able to act when 
no one else can or no one else will.
  Senator Byrd and I do not want Congress to ever shrink from its 
constitutional responsibility. And it is Senator Byrd who understands 
the Constitution better than anyone on this floor. But I, as a new 
Member, am trying to see things in a way that our Founding Fathers 
intended and to remain true to the balance of power that they attempted 
to create.
  Our bill is aimed at getting our European allies to start taking a 
greater share of the responsibility for their own regional security 
matters. This will free the United States to respond where our allies 
cannot or will not and where the United States is the only power that 
is capable of doing so.
  It is in the interest of our allies that we maintain the capability 
to keep the world safe from threats that would endanger our mutual 
security. The United States has nearly twice the number of troops on 
the ground as our next closest ally, Great Britain. We have three times 
more than the French and German allies.
  Our bill provides for a gradual-phased timetable of reduction of the 
level of U.S. troops so that by February in the year 2000 the American 
ground combat level would not exceed 2,500. This timetable is 
consistent with the stated objectives of the Clinton administration.
  In a recent letter to several Senators, President Clinton said, ``The 
deployment will not be open-ended. . .SFOR will be progressively 
reduced.
  Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia and I hope to aid the 
administration by offering a credible and orderly timetable for such 
reductions so that we can provide the ability to finance the mission 
with some sense that we will know what to expect.
  Our bill provides 6,900 troops by June 30, 1998; 5,000 by February 2, 
1999; 3,500 by June 30, 1999; and 2,500 by February 2, 2000.
  Our bill exempts from these totals those forces that are needed to 
protect the U.S. troops as the drawdowns proceed. We also exempt those 
forces necessary to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities. Most important, 
we exempt any U.S. ground forces which may be deployed as part of NATO 
containment operations in regions surrounding the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.
  It is my belief that one of our principal objectives in the Balkans 
should be to prevent the conflict in Bosnia from spilling over into 
neighboring European countries. Should the President propose to 
establish a NATO containment perimeter around Bosnia, our bill would 
permit that.
  Why is our legislation needed? What does it have to do with military 
readiness? Just last week this Congress approved adding a half a 
billion dollars to the Bosnia operation. This brings our total to $8 
billion. The President has asked for another $2 billion for the next 
year. That makes a $10 billion operation, five times the original 
estimate this administration gave Congress.
  Where is this money coming from? It is coming from future readiness. 
We are borrowing from the future to pay for a mission that is clearly 
capable of being performed by countries other than the world's only 
superpower. If they can do this, the United States can be ready to 
respond in other areas where we have mutual security threats with our 
allies, such as the Middle East and Asia.
  There are ample indications that our readiness has begun to suffer as 
we have drawn forces and resources off to support regional conflicts. 
In the U.S. Pacific Command, the commander in chief testified before 
Congress that some forces required for long-term commitments in the 
Asia-Pacific area of responsibility are now positioned in the Persian 
Gulf. He further reports that the Pacific fleet is short over 1,900 
sailors in key technical ratings.
  In the Pacific Air Forces, the F-16 cannibalization rate is 12.8 
percent--a more than 100 percent increase since 1995 due to lack of 
spare parts.
  The Army faces similar shortfalls. A recent Army Times report 
revealed that while the 1st Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent, 
its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below 
85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent. 
Noncommissioned officers are also in short supply in the divisions, 
particularly sergeants. In the 10th Division, 24 of 162 infantry squads 
were not fully or only minimally filled.
  According to Major General Carl Ernst, commanding general of the 
Army's premier infantry training post at Fort Monroe, VA, this is 
having a serious negative impact on the Army. General Ernst recently 
told a congressional panel at Fort Monroe, ``We are now dangerously 
close to the breaking point.''
  What about the Air Force? In the Air Force, only 29 percent of the 
pilots eligible for a $60,000 bonus to sign up for 5 more years signed 
up. That is half the number that took that bonus last year.
  Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our military cannot 
continue to provide peacekeeping operations all over the world. This 
causes them to lose the skills for which they have been trained and 
dulls their fighting edge. We are letting it happen because the 
operations tempo is too high and the amount of money we have is finite.
  What is suffering is the quality of life of our military. We are 
losing our most experienced people. Also our modernization suffers as 
we try to keep our

[[Page S4438]]

best planes in the air, with the parts that they need to function, and, 
perhaps most important, the systems that we will need to meet the 
future security risks of our country and those of all of our allies. 
This includes the threat of an incoming ballistic missile with a 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. We know that 30 countries in 
the world have ballistic missile capabilities, yet we are not deploying 
as quickly as possible any defenses.
  What the Senator from West Virginia and I are asking is that our 
allies, who are perfectly capable of performing these peacekeeping 
missions as well as anyone can, take that responsibility. Let the 
United States build our forces through modernization and technology and 
develop missile defense systems so that we can be there if there is a 
real threat to our mutual security. We cannot have a military that is 
unable to respond. We must not have a military that is not respected by 
our allies, nor our adversaries.
  The Senator from West Virginia has stood for the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress. I hope to follow in his footsteps in always 
reminding our Senate of the importance that we uphold our one-third of 
the balance of power in our Government. Our one-third is that we must 
be the stewards of the funds. Only Congress was empowered to declare 
war. I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be 
sending troops abroad in operations other than war. They intended it to 
be a tough decision, to put our troops in harm's way.
  Mr. President, I am going to stand for the U.S. 
Senate's responsibility to assure that we do not fling our troops 
around the world in operations other than war and dissipate our 
resources and our readiness. I am proud to cosponsor with the Senator 
from West Virginia the bill that will begin the orderly and responsible 
exit from Bosnia, with our allies, as a team, coming together and 
sharing this burden in a way that meets the regional test and meets our 
responsibility in the world to do that which no one else can.

  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this 
area. I hope we will have the strongest bipartisan support for our bill 
so that we can make this law, so that our allies will know that when we 
say we are going to do something--whether it is something they like or 
don't like--that we will keep our word. That is in their best interests 
as well as ours.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and a half minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for a very 
knowledgeable and forceful statement, well articulated, and one which 
shows a great deal of wisdom with respect to the impact upon the 
readiness of our military forces, the impact caused by having our 
forces in Europe under the circumstances which we have described.
  Mr. President, in order that Senators may be well informed as to the 
substance of the bill which the Senator from Texas and I are 
introducing, I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2036

       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 ``Bosnia Force Realignment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) The Congress finds the following:
       (1) United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina have accomplished the military mission 
     assigned to them as a component of the Implementation and 
     Stabilization Forces.
       (2) The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground 
     forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is subject 
     to the oversight authority of the Congress;
       (3) Congress may limit the use of appropriated funds to 
     create the conditions for an orderly and honorable withdrawal 
     of U.S. troops from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
       (4) On November 27, 1995, the President affirmed that 
     United States participation in the multinational military 
     Implementation Force in the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina would terminate in about one year.
       (5) The President declared the expiration date of the 
     mandate for the Implementation Force to be December 20, 1996.
       (6) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff expressed confidence that the Implementation 
     Force would complete its mission in about one year.
       (7) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff expressed the critical importance of 
     establishing a firm deadline, in the absence of which there 
     is a potential for expansion of the mission of U.S. forces;
       (8) On October 3, 1996, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff announced the intention of the United States 
     Administration to delay the removal of United States Armed 
     Forces personnel from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     until March 1997.
       (9) In November 1996 the President announced his intention 
     to further extend the deployment of United States Armed 
     Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina until June 
     1998.
       (10) The President did not request authorization by the 
     Congress of a policy that would result in the further 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina until June 1998.
       (11) Notwithstanding the passage of two previously 
     established deadlines, the reaffirmation of those deadlines 
     by senior national security officials, and the endorsement by 
     those same national security officials of the importance of 
     having a deadline as a hedge against an expanded mission, the 
     President announced on December 17, 1997 that establishing a 
     deadline had been a mistake and that U.S. ground combat 
     forces were committed to the NATO-led mission in Bosnia for 
     the indefinite future;
       (12) NATO military forces have increased their 
     participation in law enforcement, particularly police, 
     activities;
       (13) U.S. Commanders of NATO have stated on several 
     occasions that, in accordance with the Dayton Peace Accords, 
     the principal responsibility for such law enforcement and 
     police activities lies with the Bosnian parties themselves.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year may not be 
     obligated for the ground elements of the United States Armed 
     Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina except as 
     conditioned below;
       (1) The President shall continue the ongoing withdrawal of 
     American forces from the NATO Stabilization Force in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina such that U.S. ground 
     forces in that force or the planned multi-national successor 
     force shall not exceed:
       (i) 6900, by June 30, 1998;
       (ii) 5000, by February 2, 1999;
       (iii) 3500, by June 30, 1999, and;
       (iv) 2500, by February 2, 2000.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply--
       (1) to the extent necessary for U.S. ground forces to 
     protect themselves as the drawdowns outlined in sub-paragraph 
     (a)(1) proceeds;
       (2) to the extent necessary to support a limited number of 
     United States military personnel sufficient only to protect 
     United States diplomatic facilities in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; or
       (3) to the extent necessary to support non-combat military 
     personnel sufficient only to advise the commanders North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization peacekeeping operations in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and
       (4) to U.S. ground forces that may be deployed as part of 
     NATO containment operations in regions surrounding the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (c) Construction of Section.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under 
     the Constitution to protect the lives of United States 
     citizens.
       (d) Limitation on Support for Law Enforcement Activities in 
     Bosnia.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year 
     may be obligated or expended after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act for the:
       (1) Conduct of, or direct support for, law enforcement and 
     police activities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
     except for the training of law enforcement personnel or to 
     prevent imminent loss of life.
       (2) Conduct of, or support for, any activity in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that may have the effect 
     of jeopardizing the primary mission of the NATO-led force in 
     preventing armed conflict between the Federation of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (`Bosnian 
     Entities').
       (3) Transfer of refugees within the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina that, in the opinion of the commander of NATO 
     Forces involved in such transfer--
       (A) has as one of its purposes the acquisition of control 
     by a Bosnian Entity of territory allocated to the other 
     Bosnian Entity under the Dayton Peace Agreement; or
       (B) may expose United States Armed Forces to substantial 
     risk to their personal safety.
       (4) Implementation of any decision to change the legal 
     status of any territory within the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina unless expressly agreed to by all signatories to 
     the Dayton Peace Agreement.

     SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL REPORT.

       (a) Not later than December 1, 1998, the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the progress towards meeting 
     the drawdown limit established in section 2(a).
       (b) The report under paragraph (a) shall include an 
     identification of the specific steps

[[Page S4439]]

     taken by the United States Government to transfer the United 
     States portion of the peacekeeping mission in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina to European allied nations or 
     organizations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2037. An original bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to 
implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty, to provide limitations on copyright liability 
relating to material online, and for other purposes; from the Committee 
on the Judiciary; placed on the calendar.


                    Digital Millennium Copyright Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which 
the Senate Judiciary Committee is reporting today, is important for our 
economy, for our creative industries and for the future of the 
Internet. This legislation is based on the WIPO implementing 
legislation, S. 1121, recommended by the Administration and introduced 
last year by the Chairman, Senators Thompson and Kohl and me.
  Following intensive discussions with a number of interested parties, 
including libraries, universities, small businesses, online and 
Internet service providers, telephone companies, computer users, 
broadcasters, content providers and device manufacturers, the Committee 
was able to reach unanimous agreement on certain modifications and 
additions incorporated into the bill and making this bill a product of 
which we can all be proud.
  Significant provisions were added to the bill in Title II to clarify 
the liability for copyright infringement of online and Internet service 
providers. These provisions set forth ``safe harbors'' from liability 
for ISPs and OSPs under clearly defined circumstances, which both 
encourage responsible behavior and protect important intellectual 
property rights. In addition, during the Committee's consideration of 
this bill, an Ashcroft-Leahy-Hatch amendment was adopted to ensure that 
computer users are given reasonable notice of when their Web sites are 
the subject of infringement complaints, and to provide procedures for 
computer users to have material mistakenly taken down put back.
  This bill contains a number of provisions designed to help libraries 
and archives. First, libraries expressed concerns about the possibility 
of criminal sanctions or potentially ruinous monetary liability for 
actions taken in good faith. This bill makes sure that libraries acting 
in good faith can never be subject to fines or civil damages. 
Specifically, a library is exempt from monetary liability in a civil 
suit if it was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts 
constituted a violation. In addition, libraries are completely exempt 
from the criminal provisions.
  Second, the bill contains a browsing exception for libraries. 
Libraries have indicated that in an online environment dominated by 
encrypted works it may be impossible for them to gain access to works 
to decide whether or not to acquire them. The current version of the 
bill permits libraries to circumvent access prevention technologies in 
order to make a good faith determination of whether or not it would 
like to buy a copy of a work. If the library decides that it wishes to 
acquire the work it must negotiate with the copyright owner just as 
libraries do today.
  Third, the Chairman, Senator Ashcroft and I crafted an amendment to 
provide for the preservation of digital works by qualified libraries 
and archives. The ability of Libraries to preserve legible copies of 
works in digital form is one I consider critical. Under present law, 
libraries are permitted to make a single facsimile copy of works in 
their collections for preservation purposes, or to replace lost, 
damaged or stolen copies of works that have become commercially 
unavailable. This law, however, has become outmoded by changing 
technology and preservation practices. The bill ensures that libraries' 
collections will continue to be available to future generations by 
permitting libraries to make up to three copies in any format--
including in digital form. This was one of the proposals in the 
National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act of 1995, 
which I sponsored in the last Congress. The Register of Copyrights, 
among others, has supported that proposal.
  In addition, the bill would permit a library to transfer a work from 
one digital format to another if the equipment needed to read the 
earlier format becomes unavailable commercially. This change addresses 
a problem that should be familiar to anyone whose office has boxes of 
eight-inch floppy disks tucked away somewhere.
  These provisions go a long way toward meeting the concerns that 
libraries have expressed about the original bill, S. 1121, introduced 
to implement the WIPO treaties.
  Another issue that the bill addresses is distance learning. When 
Congress enacted the present copyright law it recognized the potential 
of broadcast and cable technology to supplement classroom teaching, and 
to bring the classroom to those who, because of their disabilities or 
other special circumstances, are unable to attend classes. At the same 
time, Congress also recognized the potential for unauthorized 
transmissions of works to harm the markets for educational uses of 
copyrighted materials. In the present Copyright Act, we struck a 
careful balance and crafted a narrow exemption. But as with so many 
areas of copyright law, the advent of digital technology requires us to 
take another look at the issue.
  I recognize that the issue of distance learning has been under 
consideration for the past several years by the Conference on Fair Use 
(CONFU) that was established by the Administration to consider issues 
relating to fair use in the digital environment. In spite of the hard 
work of the participants, CONFU has so far been unable to forge a 
comprehensive agreement on guidelines for the application of fair use 
to digital distance learning. The issue is an important one, and I 
commend Senator Ashcroft for his attention to this matter.

  We made tremendous strides in charting the appropriate course for 
updating the Copyright Act to permit the use of copyrighted works in 
valid distance learning activities. The Chairman, Senator Ashcroft and 
I joined together to ask the Copyright Office to facilitate discussions 
among interested library and educational groups and content providers 
with a view toward making recommendations that could be incorporated 
into the DMCA at the April 30 mark up. The Copyright Office did just 
that, once again providing a valuable service to this Committee.
  Based on the Copyright Office's recommendations, we incorporated into 
the DMCA a new Section 122 requiring the Copyright Office to make 
broader recommendations to Congress on digital distance education 
within six months. Upon receiving the Copyright Office's 
recommendations, it is my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will 
promptly commence hearings on the issue and move expeditiously to enact 
further legislation on the matter. I know that my fellow members on 
this Committee are as anxious as I am to complete the process that we 
started in Committee of updating the Copyright Act to permit the 
appropriate use of copyrighted works in valid distance learning 
activities. This step should be viewed as a beginning--not an end, and 
we are committed to reaching that end point as quickly as possible.
  Senator Feinstein had sought to clarify when a university would be 
held responsible for the actions of its employees in connection with 
its eligibility for the safe harbors spelled out in title II of the 
bill. Chairman Hatch, Senator Ashcroft and I agreed with Senator 
Feinstein that the best way to address this issue is to have the 
Copyright Office examine this issue in a comprehensive fashion, because 
of its importance, complexity, and implications for other online 
service providers, including libraries and archives.
  Amendments sponsored by Senators Ashcroft, Hatch and I were also 
crafted to address the issues of reverse engineering, ephemeral 
recordings and to clarify for broadcasters the use of copyright 
management information in the course of certain analog and digital 
transmissions.
  Legislative language was incorporated into the bill to clarify that 
the law enforcement exemptions apply to all government agencies which 
conduct law enforcement and intelligence work, as well as to government 
contractors engaging in intelligence, investigative, or protective 
work.
  Chairman Hatch, Senator Ashcroft and I agreed to language to assuage 
the concerns of the consumer electronics

[[Page S4440]]

manufacturers, and others, that the bill might require them to design 
their products to respond to any particular technological protection 
measure. We also agreed to incorporate provisions into the bill 
clarifying that nothing in the bill will prevent parents from 
controlling their children's access to the Internet or individuals from 
protecting personal identifying information.
  By reaching agreement on this bill, this Committee is helping to 
create American jobs, protect American ingenuity, and foster an ever 
more vibrant Internet. In short, the WIPO treaties and this 
implementing legislation are important to America's economic future. 
The bill addresses the problems caused when copyrighted works are 
disseminated through the Internet and other electronic transmissions 
without the authority of the copyright owner. By establishing clear 
rules of the road, this bill will allow electronic commerce to flourish 
in a way that does not undermine America's copyright community.
  In a recent letter about the DMCA, Secretary Daley said, ``The United 
States must lead the way in setting a standard that will protect our 
creative industries and serve as a model for the rest of the world. And 
we need to act as quickly as possible.''
  This bill is a well-balanced package of proposals that address the 
needs of creators, consumers and commerce well into the next century. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support the Digital Millennium Copyright 
Act and work for its prompt passage.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. In my view, we need this measure to 
stop an epidemic of illegal copying of protected works--such as movies, 
books, musical recordings, and software. The copyright industry is one 
of our most thriving businesses. But we still lose more than $15 
billion each year due to foreign copyright piracy, according to some 
estimates.
  This foreign piracy is out of control. For example, one of my 
staffers investigating video piracy on a trip to China walked into a 
Hong Kong arcade and bought three bootlegged computer games--including 
``Toy Story'' and ``NBA '97''--for just $10. These games normally sell 
for about $100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about it, he even 
agreed to give a receipt.
  Illegal copying has been a longstanding concern to me. I introduced 
one of the precursors to this bill, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act, 
which in principle has been incorporated into this measure. And I was 
one of the original cosponsors of the original proposed WIPO 
implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this measure.
  In my opinion, this bill achieves a fair balance by taking steps to 
effectively deter piracy, while still allowing fair use of protected 
materials. It is the product of intensive negotiations between all of 
the interested parties--including the copyright industry, telephone 
companies, libraries, universities and device manufacturers. And every 
major concern raised during that process was addressed. For these 
reasons, it earned the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee. Of 
course, as with any legislation, some tinkering may still be needed.
  I am confident that this bill has the best approach for stopping 
piracy and strengthening one of our biggest export industries. It 
deserves our support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Warner) (by 
        request):
  S. 2038. A bill to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize 
appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts 
and to further define the criteria for capital repair and operation and 
maintenance; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


           the john f. kennedy center for the performing arts

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the John F. Kennedy 
Center for the Performing Arts Authorization Act. I am introducing this 
bill at the request of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, in my 
capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
Joining me as cosponsors of the bill are the chairman and ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Senators Warner and Baucus.
  The concept of a national center for the performing arts originated 
during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. President 
Eisenhower envisioned a national cultural center in the nation's 
capital, and in 1958, with the support of Congress, he signed into law 
the National Cultural Center Act, which established the Center as an 
independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian Institution. 
Following the death of President Kennedy, the Congress in 1964 renamed 
the Center in honor of the late president.
  The Kennedy Center was opened to the public in September 1971. The 
response was overwhelming--so much so that the Center's Board of 
Trustees requested help from Congress in maintaining and operating the 
Center, for the benefit of the millions of visitors. In 1972, Congress 
authorized the National Park Service to provide maintenance, security, 
and other services necessary to maintain the facility. For the next two 
decades, the Park Service received federal appropriations for the 
maintenance and operation of the Presidential monument.
  In the early part of this decade, however, it became clear that the 
Kennedy Center facility--which had not seen comprehensive capital 
repair since its opening--had deteriorated significantly due to both 
age and intensive public use. Those repairs that had taken place--such 
as the 1977 repair of the leaking roof--were undertaken in response to 
threatening conditions. The Board of Trustees, with the support of the 
Park Service, therefore set out to achieve a more effective long-term 
approach to management of the facility, with one entity responsible for 
both the care of the physical plant and the staging of performance 
activities.
  In 1994, therefore, Congress approved and the President signed the 
John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments (Public Law 103-279). That Act 
authorized the transfer of all capital repair, operations, and 
maintenance of the facility from the Park Service to the Board of 
Trustees.
  The Act also directed the Board to develop a comprehensive, multi-
year plan for the restoration and ongoing maintenance of the Kennedy 
Center. In 1995, the Board delivered the Comprehensive Building Plan, 
which set forth a long-term, two-stage program for the remediation of 
substandard building conditions, as well as continuous maintenance for 
the future. Phase I, scheduled for Fiscal Years 1995 through 1998, has 
concluded successfully. During this time, several major projects were 
completed, including the installation of a new, energy-efficient 
heating and cooling system, replacement of the leaking roof and roof 
terrace, and the major renovation of the Concert Hall. Phase II is 
scheduled to take place over the next eleven fiscal years, through 
Fiscal Year 2009. This stage will involve the massive ``Center Block'' 
project, during which the Opera House will be overhauled, as well as 
projects to make improvements to the plaza, improve accessibility to 
the theaters, install fire and other safety technology, and make a host 
of other repairs designed to ensure that the facility meets life safety 
standards.
  That brings us to the legislation I am introducing today. For the 
major Phase II projects to get underway, Congress must revise the 1994 
Act to authorize appropriate funding for the next several fiscal years. 
The bill I am introducing today authorizes significant funding levels 
for the next eleven fiscal years for maintenance as well as capital 
repair work.
  Over the next several weeks, I and other members of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works intend to review carefully the planned 
repair activities and the authorization request. The Kennedy Center is 
a living Presidential memorial and a national monument, and as such 
demands a high standard of maintenance and upkeep. As an ex-officio 
member of the Board, and Chairman of the authorizing Committee, I am 
dedicated to the appropriate restoration and preservation of the 
facility, which millions of Americans have enjoyed for more than a 
quarter of a century. Nevertheless, it is Congress' duty on behalf of 
the taxpayers to scrutinize this request closely. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the Senate, the Administration, and the 
Kennedy Center Board

[[Page S4441]]

to ensure that we allocate federal resources in an effective and 
responsible manner.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2039. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        the el camino real de tierra adentro national trail act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de 
Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. This legislation is 
important to New Mexico and contributes to the national dialogue on the 
history of this country and who we are as a people.
  In history classes across the country, children learn about the 
establishment of European settlements on the East Coast, and the east 
to west migration which occurred under the banner of Manifest Destiny. 
We in New Mexico, however, also know the story of the northward 
exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish, a little 
known but important piece of America's history.
  My legislation recognizes a proud chapter in American history; the 
northward exploration and settlement of the Southwest by the Spanish. 
Building upon a network of trade routes used by the indigenous Pueblos 
along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers established a migration route 
into the interior of the continent which they called ``El Camino Real 
de Tierra Adentro,'' the Royal Road of the Interior. My bill will amend 
the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra 
Adentro as a National Historic Trail, and give the National Park 
Service a mandate to develop interpretive displays explaining the 
importance of the trail during the Spanish settlement of the southwest 
United States.
  This legislation is especially appropriate in this year of the 
Cuartocentenario, which commemorates the 400th anniversary of the 
establishment of the first Spanish capital at San Juan Pueblo, the 
first terminus of the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.
  In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists landed at 
Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish expedition which 
established the northern portion of El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro. 
The road was the main route for communication and trade between the 
colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial 
capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, 
New Mexico.
  From 1598 to 1821 El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro facilitated the 
exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, 
and military occupation of the borderlands. The Spanish influence from 
that period can still be seen today in the ethnic and cultural 
traditions of the southwestern United States.
  In the 17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for 
months to cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to 
missions, mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. On one section 
known as the Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 
90 miles without water, shelter, or firewood. Wagons heading south 
carried the products of New Mexico to markets in Mexico.
  El Camino Real became an integral part of an international network of 
commerce between Europe, the United States, New Mexico and other 
provinces of the Mexican republic. The route is a symbol of the 
commercial exchange and cultural interaction between nations and 
diverse ethnic groups that led to the development of the southwestern 
United States. It is also a proud symbol of the contributions of 
Hispanic people to the development of this great country.
  As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the 
diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the 
source of our dynamism and strength. I look forward to helping to 
advance our understanding of our rich cultural history through this 
initiative.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2039

       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 ``El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro National Historic Trail Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (the Royal Road of the 
     Interior), served as the primary route between the colonial 
     Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial 
     capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros (1598-1600), San 
     Gabriel (1600-1609) and Santa Fe (1610-1821);
       (2) the portion of El Camino Real in what is now the United 
     States extended between El Paso, Texas, and present San Juan 
     Pueblo, New Mexico, a distance of 404 miles;
       (3) El Camino Real is a symbol of the cultural interaction 
     between nations and ethnic groups and of the commercial 
     exchange that made possible the development and growth of the 
     borderland;
       (4) American Indian groups, especially the Pueblo Indians 
     of the Rio Grande, developed trails for trade long before 
     Europeans arrived;
       (5) in 1598, Juan de Onate led a Spanish military 
     expedition along those trails to establish the northern 
     portion of El Camino Real;
       (6) during the Mexican National Period and part of the 
     United States Territorial Period, El Camino Real facilitated 
     the emigration of people to New Mexico and other areas that 
     were to become part of the United States;
       (7) the exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, 
     religious conversion, and military occupation of a large area 
     of the borderland was made possible by El Camino Real, the 
     historical period of which extended from 1598 to 1882;
       (8) American Indians, European emigrants, miners, ranchers, 
     soldiers, and missionaries used El Camino Real during the 
     historic development of the borderland, promoting cultural 
     interaction among Spaniards, other Europeans, American 
     Indians, Mexicans, and Americans; and
       (9) El Camino Real fostered the spread of Catholicism, 
     mining, an extensive network of commerce, and ethnic and 
     cultural traditions including music, folklore, medicine, 
     foods, architecture, language, place names, irrigation 
     systems, and Spanish law.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(a)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the paragraphs relating to the 
     California National Historic Trail, the Pony Express National 
     Historic Trail, and the Selma to Montgomery National Historic 
     Trail as paragraphs (18), (19), and (20), respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) El camino real de tierra adentro.--
       ``(A) In general.--El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (the 
     Royal Road of the Interior) National Historic Trail, a 404 
     mile long trail from the Rio Grande near El Paso, Texas to 
     San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico, as generally depicted on the 
     maps entitled `United States Route: El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro', contained in the report prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (b) entitled `National Historic Trail Feasibility 
     Study and Environmental Assessment: El Camino Real de Tierra 
     Adentro, Texas-New Mexico', dated March 1997.
       ``(B) Map.--A map generally depicting the trail shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the Office of the 
     National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
       ``(C) Administration.--The trail shall be administered by 
     the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(D) Land acquisition.--No land or interest in land 
     outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered 
     area may be acquired by the United States for the trail 
     except with the consent of the owner of the land or interest 
     in land.
       ``(E) Volunteer groups; consultation.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       ``(i) encourage volunteer trail groups to participate in 
     the development and maintenance of the trail; and
       ``(ii) consult with affected Federal, State, and tribal 
     agencies in the administration of the trail.
       ``(F) Coordination of activities.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may coordinate with United States and Mexican public 
     and non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, 
     and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the 
     government of Mexico and its political subdivisions, for the 
     purpose of exchanging trail information and research, 
     fostering trail preservation and educational programs, 
     providing technical assistance, and working to establish an 
     international historic trail with complementary preservation 
     and education programs in each nation.''.

                          ____________________