[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21939-21943]
[From the U.S. 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. 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 un-
impaired 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.

[[Page 21940]]

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 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

[[Page 21941]]

``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 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

[[Page 21942]]

     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 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.

[[Page 21943]]


  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.

                          ____________________