[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 126 (Monday, September 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11429-S11433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECENT EVENTS ON THE NATIONAL MALL
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I take a few minutes today to speak
about recent events on The National Mall. The Mall, as Judge Buckley of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has written,
``is an area of particular significance in the life of the Capital and
the Nation.'' It is a 2-mile green area that stretches from the Capitol
in the east to the Lincoln Memorial in the west. It is, as another
judge noted, ``the site of monuments marking great figures and events
in our Nation's history.'' But it is more than home to these enduring
symbols of our nationhood. This judge went on to say: ``Its grassy
expanse provides areas for any number of recreational activities. . .
.''
The National Mall has also been used, of course, for large-scale
events.
[[Page S11430]]
It is used for the Fourth of July festivities each year and for the
Cherry Blossom Festival. Every 4 years, it is used for our inaugural
celebrations. It has been the site of national observances and
protests--some of the most famous in our Nation's history. ``It is
here,'' as Judge Buckley went on to say, ``that the constitutional
right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest expression.''
Mr. President, Congress has entrusted the Department of the Interior,
and particularly the National Park Service within the Department of the
Interior, with preserving and regulating the use of this important part
of our national heritage. It has, according to the statute, charged the
National Park Service with regulating the use of The Mall so as to
``conform'' such use ``to the fundamental purpose'' of ``conserving the
scenery and natural and historic objects . . . and providing for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner . . . as will leave them
unimpaired for their enjoyment by future generations.''
The Mall, as I have said, serves many purposes. None of those
purposes that have been identified by the Congress or in regulation are
commercial purposes. Accordingly, the National Park Service regulations
provide that demonstrations and special events on The Mall may be held
only pursuant to permit issued by the Park Service. The rules prohibit
the commercial use of The Mall and specifically provide that ``no sales
shall be made . . . and no article may be exposed for sale without a
permit. . . .''
Despite the clear prohibitions in its own regulations, the Park
Service has now sanctioned a new use for this area. That use,
unfortunately, can only be called commercial exploitation.
Earlier this month, to promote the start of the new football season,
the National Football League held what the Department of the Interior
described as a music and football festival entitled the ``NFL Kickoff
Live From The National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla.'' That was the
official title of the event. To allow for the setup and removal of
infrastructure associated with this concert, the Park Service gave the
NFL a permit to use The Mall for 17 days--the period between August 25
and September 10. The main event occurred on September 4. For many of
those days, much of The Mall was fenced off and the public was
prevented from using it, although it obviously is one of the most
popular spaces in our Nation's Capital.
I have spent a great deal of time on The Mall, as I am sure my
colleagues have, and I can tell you that currently, even without this
kind of extravaganza, it is difficult to walk the length of The Mall
from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. Large areas are closed
because of construction of the World War II Memorial and also
construction of new security features at the Washington Monument.
Portions of The Mall are also closed periodically following events,
such as the Fourth of July activities or after large public gatherings,
to allow for cleanup and restoration of the grassy areas.
In this case--the case of this NFL extravaganza--a large segment of
The Mall was essentially closed to the public to allow for what, in my
opinion, can only be characterized as commercial use and as advertising
by private corporations.
Let me start with this photograph and show that corporate sponsors of
the concert that occurred on September 4 were allowed to put up a large
fence covered with advertising. This advertising talks about the
kickoff of 2003 NFL, live from Washington, DC; AOL for broadband; Pepsi
Vanilla; Coors Light, and Verizon. This is advertising, in my view.
This is clearly commercial activity.
Apart from keeping the public off The Mall, the clear message to the
public was that The Mall had been turned over to these companies for
commercial purposes.
The National Park Service has published guidelines to help
organizations that want to hold events on The Mall to know what is
required. The guidelines state:
The theme of a special event must be consistent with the
mission of the park--
In this case, we are talking about The Mall. These guidelines apply
to all of our national parks in the capital region.
They go on to say:
and appropriate to the park area in which it is to be held,
including consideration for possible damage and/or impairment
to park property, facilities, plantings and landscape
features . . . and park values.
Our Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, whose agency approved the
permit for this event, maintains today that this was an appropriate use
of The Mall because it was undertaken in partnership with the
Department's ``Take Pride in America'' slogan promoting voluntarism on
public lands and because it was an event honoring members of our Armed
Forces.
Clearly, nobody objects to an event celebrating public volunteers or
honoring military personnel.
However, Secretary Norton's stated rationale for approving the event
is simply not consistent with what actually took place on The Mall. It
is not consistent, when you look at the banner surrounding The Mall, to
say this has anything to do with voluntarism or recognizing the
military.
This is a photograph of the event. Let me show another photograph
which I think makes the case rather convincingly. This is a photograph
of the event which was published in the Washington Post. This,
evidently, is Secretary Norton's vision of an appropriate use of The
Mall.
It is impossible to miss the advertisements for Pepsi Vanilla or for
Verizon, for Coors, and for its other sponsors, and you certainly
cannot miss the huge football promoting the National Football League.
It is almost impossible, I suggest, to the untrained eye to find
references to the supposed reasons for the event. The ``Take Pride in
America'' slogan does appear at the bottom of the advertising banners,
and in the other photo it appears at the top of the fence, but I am
certain that nobody from any distance--I can barely read it from here--
I am sure nobody can read it from any reasonable distance.
This photograph makes the point that the overwhelming image is
turning over The Mall for commercial advertising. The event was used as
the basis for a commercial television production. Commercials were
broadcast to the crowd over large televisions that were located on The
Mall itself.
The Secretary of the Interior may view this as business as usual,
but, in my view, allowing this type of commercial activity with blatant
product advertising is contrary to what the policy is for our national
parks, including The Mall. It is also contrary to what responsible
public policy should be in this area.
During her confirmation hearing, I expressed concern to Secretary
Norton that as Secretary of the Interior she would hold one of the
highest positions of public trust in our Nation's Government. The
Secretary of the Interior is the principal guardian of our national
parks and our most revered historic sites. Certainly, The National Mall
is among the most important symbolic spaces in our country.
I was concerned that based on her previous public statements and
writings, she had a long record of having championed the interests of
corporations in opposition to the Federal Government. At her
confirmation hearing, Secretary Norton assured me she would enforce the
laws as written, and it is my understanding that in this case the laws
and regulations of the Park Service made very clear The National Mall
is not to be used as a venue for commercial purposes. It is not to be
used as a venue for advertising. I do not see how anyone can look at
these photos and believe the Secretary carried out her responsibilities
in this instance.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation to authorize
construction of an education center near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
very much along the lines of a similar bill we passed in the Senate
during the last Congress. I was involved in negotiating the language
for that bill and tried to ensure that the National Park Service
retained its ability to approve the site and the design of the center,
and at the request of the Park Service we included language stating the
center should be built ``consistent with the special nature and
sanctity of The Mall.''
If these photographs reflect Secretary Norton's definition of ``the
special nature and sanctity of The Mall,'' I have great concern about
what, in
[[Page S11431]]
fact, we are going to wind up protecting with regard to the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. What can we reasonably tell those who intend to
operate the educational center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is not
permitted if, in fact, all of this is permitted?
The National Park Service regulations generally prohibit commercial
advertising on public lands. In addition, the specific permit that was
issued related to this event stated no commercial activity was to be
conducted. Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior decided the
activity we see in this photograph was not commercial activity; that
these banners were not advertisements. In the view of the Park Service,
these were ``sponsor recognition.'' That is a distinction I was unaware
of, between advertising and sponsor recognition. But clearly, the
National Park Service believes that distinction needs to be maintained.
Even though the National Football League was the organization that
sponsored the concert, it was permitted to solicit other companies to
underwrite the event's expenses, and those other companies in turn were
permitted to advertise on The Mall or, as the Interior Department put
it, to obtain ``sponsor recognition.''
It is not clear where the authority comes from for this decision by
the National Park Service to allow such ``sponsor recognition.'' The
agency's regulations clearly prohibit the display of commercial notices
or advertisements on National Park Service lands except where the park
superintendent determines the notices relate to products at that park
area and the superintendent determines the notices are ``desirable and
necessary for the convenience and guidance of the public.'' I do not
see how these banners, these fence advertisements fit in to that
requirement.
It would have been one thing if this event had occurred and following
it the Interior Department and the National Park Service had admitted a
mistake had been made and they would take appropriate steps to prevent
this from occurring in the future. But the leadership of the Interior
Department and the Park Service, from Secretary Norton on down, makes
no such admission. They continue to insist this was entirely
appropriate.
Secretary Norton may not care whether this type of event takes place
again on The Mall, but I do, and I think many of my colleagues will
when they become better informed about this situation.
To better understand the Secretary's reasoning that this was not, in
fact, commercial activity, that there was no commercial advertising
taking place, I am sending a letter to the Secretary requesting copies
of the correspondence and the e-mails and the planning memos and other
documents the Secretary relied on in concluding this was not commercial
activity.
The Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service
leadership maintain that commercial activity is not allowed on The
Mall; what took place here was not commercial. Since there apparently
is a disconnect between what they say and the reality of what, in fact,
took place, I think the only solution is to change the law to make it
clear, even to the Secretary, that this type of use is not appropriate
on The Mall.
When the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor, I intend to
offer an amendment to make it clear that future permits to hold special
events on The Mall may not include commercial advertising, whether they
couch that as ``sponsor recognition'' or not. I want to emphasize The
Mall clearly should continue to be available for large-scale events.
If the Secretary had approved a large concert to celebrate our troops
or to promote her volunteer program, then there would not have been a
public outcry such as we have seen as a result of this situation. It
was her decision to allow the concert to be used for commercial
purposes, to allow the commercial advertising that occurred here that,
in my view, crossed the line.
If the Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials
had made any effort to advocate the protection of the resource with
which they are charged to manage, then this would not have been a
problem. Since they have refused to do so, it seems to me we must
change the statute.
Last week, Albert Eisele of the Hill newspaper wrote an excellent
article entitled ``Desecration of The Mall.'' I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of that article be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post
editorial entitled ``Marketing the Mall,'' and an article by Tom Shales
in the Washington Post entitled ``America, Brought To You by . . . ''
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibits 2 and 3.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, The National Mall is more than just an
expanse of grass or an undeveloped field. It is a national treasure. By
the National Park Service's own account, it is the single most
significant public park and open space in our Nation's Capital. It is
visited by millions of citizens and visitors from abroad each year.
It provides a formal work of landscape architecture of monumental
proportions and provides the unifying element for the carefully placed,
diverse architectural symbols, repositories and shrines of the heritage
of our democracy on and along its length.
There has been broad public agreement both in Washington and around
the country that allowing the type of activity that occurred at these
commercial events is a new low point in the storied history of The
Mall. Perhaps this will only be remembered as an unfortunate incident,
but we need to make sure that this is not the model for future events
on The Mall. We need to act to prohibit increased commercialization in
our national parks, and a good place to start is acting to protect The
Mall.
When we do get to the actual voting on the issue, I hope my
colleagues will support the effort to protect The Mall from further
commercial exploitation.
Exhibit 1
[From the Hill, September 10, 2003]
Desecration of the Mall
(By Albert Eisele)
An older colleague who wrote a daily column in the St. Paul
Pioneer Press when I worked there many years ago once told me
his best columns were those generated by a sense of outrage.
If so, this should be one of my best columns, as few things
have offended me more than the disgraceful display of
mindless patriotism, insatiable commercialism and sheer bad
taste perpetrated last week by the National Football League
with its $10 million rock concert extravaganza on the Mall.
I wasn't there and didn't watch it on ABC-TV--thank God--
but one photograph in Friday's Washington Post convinced me
that aside from the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon and
subsequent anthrax attacks, last fall's sniper shootings or
the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan, this was
the worst thing that's happened here during my nearly 40
years in the nation's capital.
The spectacle of pop singer Britney Spears being stripped
to her black bikini bottoms to just above pubic level by a
pair of male dancers wearing Washington Redskins jerseys,
with the Capitol shining in the background, was so jarring
that it made me want to cringe.
Spear's display of erotic gyrations and lip-synched lyrics
may have a place in our appalling, vulgarized popular culture
but definitely not in the middle of the nation's most
hallowed public space.
It was bad enough that this dreadful promotion designed to
kick off the 2003 pro football season--and sell Pepsi
Vanilla, AOL and Reeboks--took place just a week after the
40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's immortal ``I Have a
Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Or that
it took place just before the second anniversary of the awful
day when Islamic terrorists crashed a jetliner into the
Pentagon and were barely prevented from flying over the Mall
to crash another into the White House or the Capitol.
But it was even worse that President Bush and Interior
Secretary Gale Norton were persuaded to serve as cheerleaders
for a so-called game that celebrates violence--as if we don't
have enough already--and that has owners who personify
rapacious greed. This was nothing more than the desecration
of a sacred space and an insult to the men and women of the
U.S. military whom the event's promoters professed to honor.
The president perhaps can be excused from accepting bad
advice but not those who persuaded him to lend the dignity of
his office to an event that left the rain-soaked Mall
trampled and garbage-strewn, both physically and
symbolically.
Somebody, ideally the congressman whose committees oversee
the Department of Interior and the National Park Service,
should
[[Page S11432]]
demand an explanation of who was responsible for allowing
this travesty to happen.
If they don't, what can we expect to see next? An ad for
Viagra on the Washington Monument? A pitch for McDonald's at
the Lincoln Memorial or Toyota at the Jefferson Memorial? Or
maybe even a banner on the Capitol Dome offering low-interest
loans from Citibank to ease the federal deficit?
I have nothing against pro football, and I'm glad the
Redskins won their opener, even as I despair of Major League
Baseball ever returning to Washington. Nor do I disagree that
many in the crowd that the NFL generously estimated at
125,000 thought it was wonderful that Britney and her fellow
entertainers were invited to do their thing on the Mall.
Nevertheless, I'm outraged and saddened. This was a low
point for a special space that stands for so much in America.
____
Exhibit 2
[From the Washington Post, September 3, 2003]
Marketing the Mall
Three days of football activities culminating in a concert
bash with celebrities ranks right up there with the Friskies
Alpo Canine Frisbee Disc World Finals as the kind of event
with a commercial flavor that has been allowed to set up shop
on the Mall in recent years. The National Park Service, which
oversees the Mall, has in the past permitted other activities
to take up space with exhibits, programs and corporate
sponsors (including The Washington Post, which has been a
sponsor of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival). But the ``NFL
Kickoff Live 2003, Presented by Pepsi Vanilla,'' the
promotional activity underway on the land between the Capitol
grounds and the Washington Monument, is, for sheer space and
length of occupancy, in a class by itself when it comes to
hawking a commercial sporting event. Is it the last of its
kind? Or is this commercialization of the Mall, marketing the
National Football League and Pepsi's new soft drink, the
start of a new and a fundamental debasement of a national
shrine?
Nearly $10 million bought the NFL and its sponsors the
right to take over the large expanse of federal land for 11
days (including setup time), reports Post staff writer David
Montgomery. Pepsi is in the deal for $2.5 million, other co-
sponsors include a beer company and the New York Stock
Exchange. Pepsi is likely to get its money's worth: At every
angle of the nationally televised concert to be aired before
tomorrow night's Washington Redskins-New York Jets game,
cameras will be able to capture Pepsi Vanilla signs. Ten
million dollars not only gets the NFL and other businesses a
huge claim on public space: For the first time in Mall
history, network television will have the right to beam a
professional sporting event, complete with commercial
advertisements, on America's core promenade.
What next?
We ask this question knowing full well that the
participatory events, sports clinics and autograph sessions
with famous former NFL stars are great fun and the kind of
buildup certainly fitting for the launch of the 2003 season.
As a marketing tool, a four-day spectacle, including a
concert paying tribute to the U.S. military, is probably good
for professional football and the promoters of Pepsi. It
certainly will be a nice celebration for the NFL's 2,000 VIP
guests invited to the Thursday night concert. The Park
Service has given the NFL permission to serve wine and Coors
beer to its special Mall guests--Coors being an event
sponsor. Regular concertgoers will be screened and no alcohol
will be allowed.
And do onto the Mall--a space that, as the National Park
Service observes, is as old as the capital city itself, one
commissioned by George Washington and planned by Pierre
L'Enfant to be an ``ideal stage for national expressions of
remembrance, observance and protest--comes now Pepsi Vanilla,
the National Football league, and Coors beer. Is this the
beginning, or will it be, mercifully, the beginning of the
end for a trend out of control?
____
Exhibit 3
[From the Washington Post, September 5, 2003]
America, Brought To You by . . .
(By Tom Shales)
American bad taste is the most powerful bad taste in the
world. That seems to be what was really being celebrated on
the Mall last night at an excruciating 55-minute rock concert
ostensibly convened to herald the new pro football season and
televised live on the struggling ABC network.
The event was deemed so auspicious that George W. Bush took
yet more time off from fighting the war on terrorism to
appear, via videotape, at the end of the concert and just
before the game, in the manner of a TV huckster. He tried to
make some connection between football and ``the spirit that
guides the brave men and women'' of the military, much as the
concert had done.
He also said pro football ``celebrates the values that make
our country so strong.'' Like what, violence and greed?
Then, in intense close-up, the leader of the Free World
asked the trademarked rhetorical question, ``Are you ready
for some football?''
Some bureaucrat whose thinking cap had blown off authorized
lending the once-solemn, or at least dignified, Mall to this
very raucous and very commercial event. The show was a
collaboration between the NFL, apparently trying to lure
younger viewers to football, and, as the announcer said,
``New Pepsi Vanilla and Diet Pepsi Vanilla, the Not-So
Vanilla Vanilla.''
The not-so-musical music included a performance by bouncy
sex bunny Britney Spears, whose vocalizing was clearly
prerecorded and badly lip-synced--but then who knew what the
heck she was singing about anyway? Spears depended heavily on
elaborate pyrotechnics and on manic aerobic-erotic
choreography during her two numbers; dancers hurled
themselves, cartwheeled, tumbled and even crawled across the
stage.
At one point, she gamboled about amid, literally, great
balls of fire--apparently forgetting that Michael Jackson's
hair was once set ablaze while he was filming a Pepsi
commercial.
There was also, as part of the alleged dancing, what's
commonly referred to as ``some girl-on-girl action'' (Spears
and Madonna kissed on the lips on a recent MTV special), as
well as writhing onstage costume changes. When they weren't
being groped or fondled by her, dancers helped Spears strip
her pants off, revealing a bikini-like black bottom for the
second number. They even helped straighten out the little
pixie's shorty shorts so that they didn't reveal too much. Or
maybe so that they did.
Spears just kept singing, singing, singing. Or rather
syncing, syncing, syncing. But the feeling some of us at home
were having would be better described as sinking, sinking,
sinking.
Also appearing was a Waldorf-born rock band called Good
Charlotte, rock veterans Aerosmith--who did so many numbers
they turned it into an Aerosmith concert--and popular
supershrieker Mary J. Blige, who apparently prefers a strange
squatting position when she wails and screams.
The only really respectable musical performance, also
clearly recorded in advance, was the majestic Aretha
Franklin's overblown yet effective rendition of the national
anthem. Of course on the line ``rockets' red glare,'' red
fireworks were set off at the back of the stage. The show,
directed and co-produced by Joel Gallen, was a never-let-
well-enough-alone production.
A closed credit, ``Paid for by the NFL,'' suggested the
football league bought the time outright from ABC and then
sold the commercial minutes. Many of the ads were, of course,
for new Pepsi Vanilla and Diet Pepsi Vanilla, the Not-So-
Vanilla Vanilla (when will they come out with not-so-
chocolate chocolate?), but there was also a super-kinetic
blitz of a commercial for Reebok Vector shoes, scored to the
opening chorus from Carl Orff's ``Carmina Burana,'' one of
the most frequently appropriated pieces of 20th-century
classical music.
When Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini included a bit
of ``Carmina Burana'' in his borderline-obscene film
``Salo,'' he explained he did so because he considered it
``fascist music.'' We just note that in passing.
Each musical act was introduced by a former NFL star--Joe
Theismann and Joe Namath opened the show together--teamed
with a member of the armed forces. Theismann said of the
concert, ``It's a national moment of remembrance,'' which
really seems preposterous in light of what followed. A woman
representing the Coast Guard said, ``I'm proud to be an
American'' before introducing Aerosmith.
During a brief cutaway to FedEx Field in Landover, game
announcer John Madden and Al Michaels argued briefly over
which player seemed more ``juiced'' for the Redskins-Jets
game that was soon--they promised--to follow. Then back to
the Mall for more eardrum-shattering rock.
While the sun still shone, the beautiful U.S. Capitol
provided an unlikely and, it seemed, reluctant backdrop for
the acts. When night came, and the dome was lit up, it
appeared to recede a bit into the distance, as if in shame.
Perhaps the Mall will be available now to every American
for weddings, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs. No, probably
not. You'll have to be a giant corporation to take over this
precious public space and, in effect, spill a ton of garbage
all over it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator withhold his
suggestion of the absence of a quorum?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to withhold that request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from
Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for
up to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered, and the Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the submission of S. Con.
Res. 68 are located in today's Record
[[Page S11433]]
under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. I ask to speak for 5 minutes under the morning business
provision under which we are now operating.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Tennessee for his very eloquent speech in regard to the life and
contributions of Johnny Cash. I suppose some might wonder why people in
the Senate would stand up and choose basically to praise an individual
who some might think was a simple country western star. Simple is
right. But, perhaps, they would ignore the fact that this was a unique
star in the horizon of stars that means a lot to Americans.
The Senator from Tennessee called him ``the poet for the working
poor.'' I might call him the minstrel for the working poor.
I came across Johnny Cash when I was in Phoenix, AR trying to be the
William Allen White of Arizona with a career in journalism. Up to that
point, I had not been a country-and-western aficionado, if you will, or
even a fan. Then, in a place called South Phoenix, which is certainly
history now, the performers would perform in California, stop in
Phoenix and go on their way to Texas. I am trying to think of the
various performers who came in there, along with Johnny Cash. He was
part of that show. I think it was before Waylon Jennings and Willie
Nelson. I really can't think of other performers. It doesn't make much
difference. But people wanted to come and see Johnny Cash. Other
performers finished--and the South Phoenix ballroom was not exactly the
Metropolitan Opera in terms of demeanor and what went on there. People
used to see the shows and then stay and watch the fights.
But anyway, the lights went off and then the spotlight went on. And
here was this tall man in black, who said, ``Hello. I am Johnny Cash.''
And the place erupted. He went through the repertoire of his famous
hits at that particular time. He was magnetic in his appeal. He had a
special appeal for the people who could really identify with what he
was singing in terms of their daily life, their pocketbooks, and the
challenges they went through.
The second time I had an opportunity to hear him was when he came to
Washington at the Merriweather Post Pavilion. The place was packed. At
that time, he was married to June Carter. I think that was probably the
top act in show business, at least on the western and country side.
The thing I wanted to mention is we had the Bicentennial ceremonies
here on The Mall in 1976. The Senator from New Mexico indicated The
Mall is sacred ground--until we had our Bicentennial ceremonies. We
went through quite a bit of activity in getting the Capitol spruced up.
A lot of artwork was redone at that particular time.
Guess who the master of ceremonies was on The Mall celebrating our
Nation's 200th anniversary. Johnny Cash. Guess who performed at a Joint
Session of Congress with his rendition of Our Flag. I think I have that
right. I may have it wrong. But there is a beautiful rendition--a
historic rendition--of the Flag. He sang, I believe, a medley of
patriotic songs before the Senate and the House.
I thought to myself: Here is someone who came from the Depression,
who had a rough time in show business, and then was a great
entertainer. And who else would be more appropriate to head up the
Bicentennial ceremonies than Johnny Cash?
The third time I had an opportunity to meet him was at the Kennedy
Center Honors where he was being honored along with great performers of
our day. His health was none too good. But I stood in line with
everybody else shaking his hand. I said to him, ``I wanted to see the
man in black. I saw you in Phoenix way back in 1962. I was very proud
of you in 1976 when you headed up the Bicentennial, and it is a real
pleasure and a privilege to make your acquaintance as of today.''
He was a very down-home man, very humble, and said it was a
privilege. He asked my name. We had a very nice conversation. I can't
think of any other entertainer who represents American talent better
than Johnny Cash.
I have, by the way, I tell the Presiding Officer, about eight
albums--not CDs, albums. If we could just find a turntable, we could go
back to Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Trio, and later we could ``Walk
The Line'' together.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________