[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.''.
____________________