[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 2037. A bill to establish the South Carolina National Heritage
Corridor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
south carolina national heritage corridor act of 1994
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator
Hollings, to introduce the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor
Act of 1994. This legislation would establish a framework to help
protect, conserve, and promote the natural, historical, cultural, and
recreational resources of the region which have national significance.
Specifically, this legislation would establish a heritage corridor in
South Carolina running from the western Piedmont down along the
Savannah Valley toward Augusta, GA, then following the route of the old
Charleston to Hamburg Railroad along the Ashley River Road to
Charleston. This route contains 14 South Carolina counties: Oconee,
Pickens, Anderson, Abbeville, Greenwood, McCormick, Edgefield, Aiken,
Barnwell, Orangeburg, Bamberg, Dorchester, Colleton, and Charleston.
Further, this measure would establish a 23 member Commission,
consisting of county representatives, South Carolina State officials,
and Federal officials, including the Director of the National Park
Service. It authorizes the Commission to oversee the development and
implementation of a corridor management action plan. This plan will
inventory the resources of the heritage corridor and discuss advisory
standards for the use and promotion of those resources. Mr. President,
let me emphasize that this legislation protects private property rights
and will not interfere with local land use ordinances or plans.
The legislation requires the active participation of the Secretary of
Interior, who shall appoint Commission members, approve the corridor
management action plan, provide assistance to the Commission, and
report to Congress on the actions taken to carry out the act.
Finally, this legislation requires that the Federal cost share
percentage, including annual operating expenses, may not exceed 50
percent. However, non-Federal matching funds may be not only cash, but
also services or in-kind contributions.
Mr. President, the heritage corridor concept is a technique that has
been used successfully in various parts of our Nation to promote
historic preservation, natural resource protection, tourism, and
economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage
corridors provide a flexible framework for governmental and private
organizations to work together on a coordinated regional basis.
The growing popularity of this concept is evidenced by the efforts
across the Nation to develop heritage areas. This past March, the
National Coalition for Heritage Areas and other interested groups
sponsored a conference on heritage partnerships. This event was
attended by concerned groups and individuals from throughout the Nation
as well as international representatives.
The initiative to develop the South Carolina National Heritage
Corridor is an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to promote the history,
culture, natural resources, and economy of the region. County visitor
councils, historical societies, and other private and Government
entities are now participating in this project.
Mr. President, I would like to describe some of the historic,
cultural, and natural resources and sites of national significance
which are contained in the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor.
Let me begin by referencing correspondence between Dr. Rodger E. Stroup
of the South Carolina State Museum and Ms. Joan Davis of the South
Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. In his letter,
Dr. Stroup describes the path of the corridor, noting many specific
sites and areas of national significance. I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of Dr. Stroup's correspondence be placed in the Record following
these remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
See exhibit 1.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in many respects, the heritage corridor
forms a microcosm of the lower South and its history. In the upper
region of the corridor, during the 1750's and 1760's, settlers and
migrants came in search of rich lands. This area became a center of
cotton and agricultural production. As westward lands opened up for
settlement, it was a major jumping off point for migration during the
ante-bellum years.
Significant events in the industrial and transportation history of
the South took place in the corridor. Graniteville was the birthplace
of the southern textile industry. It is the site of the first large-
scale cotton mill in the South, built in 1845. This became one of the
most important manufacturing centers in the pre-Civil-War South, a
model for the textile industry. Located on one of the South's major
cotton routes, it remains a textile center today. To accommodate the
westward moving cotton crop, South Carolina merchants built the
Charleston to Hamburg railroad, the longest railroad in the Nation in
1832.
The corridor also contains precious natural resources. The Francis
Beidler Forest contains the largest remaining virgin stand of bald
cyprus and tupelo trees in the world. Additionally, the Cathedral Bay
Heritage Wildlife Preserve contains unique geological features known as
the Carolina Bays. These oval depressions in the Earth, the origin of
which remains a mystery, hold black water lakes. The significant
riverine and estuarine systems of the ACE Basin forms an ecologically
diverse area which contains rare plants and serves as a wildlife and
waterfowl habitat.
Finally, Mr. President, located within the corridor are numerous
historical sites and national historic landmarks. For example,
Middleton Place, on the banks of the Ashley River is an 18th century
plantation and the site of America's oldest landscaped gardens. It has
survived revolution, Civil War, and natural disasters. It was home to
Henry Middleton, President of the Continental Congress and his son,
Arthur, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Battlefields of
both the Revolutionary War and of the Civil War are located in the
corridor. Of great historical significance is the Burt-Stark House in
Abbeville. At this site, less than a month after General Lee's
surrender at Appomattox, the President of the Confederate States of
America, Jefferson Davis, counseled with his generals on the conduct of
the war. A decision was reached at this meeting to disband the Armies
of the Confederacy.
Mr. President, these are just a few examples of the richness of this
corridor. The corridor has much more to offer; much that reminds us of
where we have been as a nation and where we are today. These and other
attractions are representative of the merging of several cultures along
the corridor--African, Caribbean, European, and native American. This
legislation will assist the communities throughout the heritage
corridor who are committed to the conservation and development of these
assets.
Mr. President, this legislation is supported by the Governor of South
Carolina, Carroll Campbell. Under his direction, various State agencies
are supporting this effort, including the department of parks,
recreation, and tourism, the department of archives and history, the
arts commission, the State department board, and the Downtown
Development Association. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
Governor Campbell be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
See exhibit 2.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2037
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 ``South Carolina National
Heritage Corridor Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, more
than 250 miles in length, possesses a wide diversity of
significant rare plants, animals, and ecosystems,
agricultural and timber lands, shellfish harvesting areas,
historic sites and structures, and cultural and multicultural
landscapes related to the past and current commerce,
transportation, maritime, textile, agricultural, mining,
cattle, pottery, and national defense industries of the
region which provide significant ecological, natural,
tourism, recreational, timber management, educational, and
economic benefits.
(2) There is a national interest in protecting, conserving,
restoring, promoting, and interpreting the benefits of the
region for the residents of, and visitors to, the Corridor
area.
(3) A primary responsibility for conserving, preserving,
protecting, and promoting the benefits resides with the State
of South Carolina and the various local units of government
having jurisdiction over the corridor area.
(4) In view of the longstanding Federal practice of
assisting the States in creating, protecting, conserving,
preserving, and interpreting areas of significant natural and
cultural importance, and in view of the national significance
of the Corridor, the Federal Government has an interest in
assisting the State of South Carolina, the units of local
government of the State, and the private sector in fulfilling
their responsibilities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To protect, preserve, conserve, restore, promote, and
interpret the significant land and water resource values and
functions of the Corridor.
(2) To encourage and support, through financial and
technical assistance, the State of South Carolina and the
units of local government of the State and the private sector
in the development of a management action plan for the
Corridor to ensure coordinated public and private action in
the Corridor area in a manner consistent with subsection (a).
(3) To provide during the development of an integrated
Corridor Management Action Plan, Federal financial and
technical assistance for the protection, preservation, and
conservation of land and water areas in the Corridor that are
in danger of being adversely affected or destroyed.
(4) To encourage and assist the State and the units of
local government of the State to identify the full range of
public and private technical and financial assistance
programs and services available to implement the Plan.
(5) To encourage adequate coordination of all government
programs affecting the land and water resources of the
Corridor.
(6) To develop a management framework with the State of
South Carolina and the units of local government of the State
for--
(A) planning and implementing the Plan; and
(B) developing policies and programs that will preserve,
conserve, protect, restore, enhance, and interpret the
cultural, historical, natural, economic, recreation, and
scenic resources of the Corridor.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the South
Carolina National Heritage Corridor Commission established
under section 5.
(2) Corridor.--The term ``Corridor'' means the South
Carolina National Heritage Corridor established under section
4.
(3) Corridor management action plan.--The term ``Corridor
Management Action Plan'' or ``Plan'' means the management
action plan developed pursuant to section 7.
(4) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of South Carolina.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 4. SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State of
South Carolina the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor.
(b) Boundaries.--
(1) In general.--The boundaries of the corridor are
predominately the western counties of the State of South
Carolina, extending from the western Piedmont along the
Savannah Valley to Augusta, Georgia, along the route of the
old Southern Railroad, along the Ashley River to Charleston.
(2) Included counties.--The Corridor shall consist of the
following counties of South Carolina, in part or in whole, as
the Commission may specify upon the recommendation of the
units of local government within the corridor area:
(A) Oconee.
(B) Pickens.
(C) Anderson.
(D) Abbeville.
(E) Greenwood.
(F) McCormick.
(G) Edgefield.
(H) Aiken.
(I) Barnwell.
(J) Orangeburg.
(K) Bamberg.
(L) Dorchester.
(M) Colleton.
(N) Charleston.
(3) Detail.--The boundaries shall be specified in detail in
the Corridor Management Action Plan prepared and approved
pursuant to this Act.
SEC. 5. THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR
COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established the South Carolina
National Heritage Corridor Commission.
(2) Responsibilities.--The Commission shall assist Federal,
State, and local authorities and the private sector in
developing and implementing an integrated management action
plan for the Corridor.
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 23
members, appointed by the Secretary as follows:
(1) The Director of the National Park Service, ex officio,
or a delegate of the Director.
(2) Six members shall be appointed from nominations
submitted by the Governor, as follows:
(A) One member shall represent the interests of the South
Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism or a
successor agency of the Department.
(B) One member shall represent the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources or a successor agency of the
Department.
(C) One member shall represent the South Carolina Arts
Commission or a successor agency of the Commission.
(D) One member shall represent the South Carolina Museum
Commission or a successor agency of the Commission.
(E) One member shall represent the South Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office or a successor agency of the
Office.
(F) One member shall represent the South Carolina
Department of Commerce or a successor agency of the
Department.
(3) Fourteen members shall be appointed from nominations
submitted by the county commissioners of which one member
shall be appointed from each of the counties of Oconee,
Pickens, Anderson, Abbeville, Greenwood, McCormick,
Edgefield, Aiken, Barnwell, Orangeburg, Bamberg, Dorchester,
Colleton, and Charleston of the State of South Carolina. The
nominations submitted by each county shall be based upon
recommendations from community visitor councils located
within the county.
(4) One member with knowledge and experience in the field
of historic preservation, shall be appointed from nominations
submitted by the Director of the National Park Service.
(5) One member shall be appointed from recommendations
submitted by the South Carolina Downtown Development
Association.
(c) Period of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
member of the Commission shall be appointed to serve for a
term of 3 years and, on the expiration of a term, may be
reappointed to serve for one or more additional terms.
(2) Limited appointments.--The members appointed pursuant
to paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of subsection (b) shall be
appointed to serve for a term of 2 years and, on the
expiration of a term, may be reappointed to serve for one or
more additional terms.
(d) Initial Appointments.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
appoint the initial members of the Commission.
(e) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall be
filled in the same manner in which the initial appointment
was made. Any member of the Commission appointed to fill a
vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which
the initial member was appointed. Any member of the
Commission appointed for a definite term may serve after the
expiration of the term until a successor is appointed.
(f) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall elect
a Chairperson from among the members of the Commission. The
Chairperson shall serve as Chairperson for the duration of
the term for which the Chairperson was appointed.
(g) Quorum.--A simple majority of Commission members shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold public
meetings. The affirmative vote of not less than 11 members of
the Commission shall be required to approve the budget of the
Commission.
(h) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly
or at the call of the Chairperson or a majority of its
members. Meetings of the Commission shall be subject to
section 552b of title 5, United States Code (relating to open
meetings).
(i) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall serve without compensation. Each member of the
Commission who is an officer or employee of the Federal
Government shall serve without compensation in addition to
compensation received for service as officers or employees of
the Federal Government.
(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission, when
engaged in Commission business, shall be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for persons employed intermittently in the
Government service under section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(j) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may, without regard to
civil service laws and regulations, appoint and fix the
compensation of such staff as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to carry out its duties. The Commission may
appoint a Director and other officers as the Commission
considers necessary or appropriate. The Commission may
appoint to the staff such specialists as the Commission
considers necessary or appropriate to carry out the duties of
the Commission, including specialists in the areas of
planning, community development, interpretive services,
historic preservation, recreation, natural resources,
commerce and industry, education, financing, and public
relations.
(2) Compensation.--The Commission may fix the compensation
of the Director and other personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
individual so appointed may receive pay in excess of the
annual rate payable for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(k) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to such rules as may
be adopted by the Commission, the Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates determined by the
Commission to be reasonable.
(l) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
Commission, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, the personnel of such agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out the
duties of the Commission. The Commission may accept the
services of personnel detailed from the State of South
Carolina, or any political subdivision of such State, and may
reimburse the State or political subdivision for the
services.
(m) Administrative Support.--The Administrator of General
Services shall provide such administrative support services
as the Commission may request, on a reimbursable basis.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Public Meetings.--The Commission may, for the purpose
of carrying out this Act, hold such public meetings, sit and
act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence, as the Commission considers
appropriate. The Commission may not issue subpoenas or
exercise subpoena authority.
(b) Bylaws.--The Commission may make such bylaws, rules,
and regulations, consistent with this Act, as it considers
necessary to carry out its functions under this Act.
(c) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Commission, if so authorized by the Commission, may take
any action which the Commission is authorized to take under
this section.
(d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(e) Use of Funds To Obtain Money.--The Commission may use
its funds to obtain money from any source under any program
or law requiring the recipient of such money to make a
contribution in order to receive such money.
(f) Retaining Revenues.--The Commission may retain revenue
from the sale or lease of any goods or services.
(g) Gifts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Commission may seek and accept gifts, bequests, and donations
of funds, property, or services from private individuals,
foundations, corporations, and other private entities, and
from public entities for the purpose of carrying out its
duties. For purposes of section 170(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, any donation to the Commission shall be
deemed to be a gift to the United States.
(h) Acquisition and Disposition of Real Property.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Commission may not acquire real property, or
interests in real property.
(2) Conditions for acquisition.--Subject to paragraph (3),
the Commission may acquire real property, or interests in
real property, in the Corridor--
(A) by gift or devise;
(B) by purchase from a willing seller using donated or
appropriated land acquisition funds; or
(C) by exchange.
(3) Conveyance.--Any real property or interest in real
property acquired by the Commission under paragraph (2) shall
be conveyed by the Commission to an appropriate public agency
or private nonprofit organization, as determined by the
Commission--
(A) as soon as practicable after such acquisition; and
(B) on the condition that the real property or interest in
real property limits use of the property to uses that are
consistent with this Act.
(4) Disposal of property.--The Commission may with approval
of the Secretary, sell any real property or interest in real
property acquired pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2) and retain the revenue from the sale.
(i) Technical Assistance.--For the purposes of implementing
the Corridor Management Action Plan, the Commission may
provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, the State
of South Carolina, political subdivisions of the State, and
persons (including corporations).
(j) Advisory Groups.--The Commission may establish public
technical advisory groups to assist the Commission in
carrying out the duties of the Commission with respect to the
areas of economic development, historic preservation, natural
resources, tourism, recreation and open space, and
transportation. The Commission may establish such additional
advisory groups as are necessary to carry out the duties of
the Commission and ensure open communication with and
assistance from interested persons (including organizations),
the State of South Carolina, and political subdivisions of
the State.
(k) Local Authority and Private Property Rights.--Nothing
in this Act is intended to affect or to authorize the
Commission to interfere with--
(1) the rights of any person with respect to private
property; or
(2) any local land use ordinance or plan of the State of
South Carolina or a political subdivision of the State.
SEC. 7. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall exercise powers
authorized by section 6 to coordinate activities of Federal,
State, and local governments and private businesses and
organizations to further historic preservation, cultural
conservation, natural area protection, soil conservation,
timber management, and economic development in a manner
consistent with this Act and in accordance with the Plan
developed pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) Corridor Management Action Plan.--
(1) Period for development.--Not later than 18 months after
the date on which the Commission conducts its first meeting,
the Commission shall submit a Corridor Management Action Plan
for the Corridor to the Secretary and to the Governor for
review and approval.
(2) Plan requirements.--The Plan shall take into
consideration State, county, and local plans existing on the
date on which the Plan is prepared. The Plan shall--
(A) provide an inventory that includes any real property in
the Corridor that should be conserved, protected, preserved,
restored, managed, developed, or maintained because of the
natural, cultural, historic, recreational, or scenic
significance of the property;
(B) provide an analysis of then current and potential land
uses within the corridor that affect the character of the
Corridor;
(C) determine the boundaries of the Corridor on basis of
the information collected pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and
(B);
(D) recommend advisory standards and criteria applicable to
the construction, preservation, restoration, alteration, and
use of real property of natural, cultural, historic,
recreational, or scenic significance within the corridor;
(E) include a heritage interpretation plan to interpret the
resources and values of the Corridor, and to provide for
appropriate educational, recreational, and tourism
opportunities and development of the Corridor;
(F) identify the full range of public and private technical
and financial assistance programs available to implement the
Plan, and detail how appropriate Federal, State, and local
programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of
this Act; and
(G) contain a coordinated implementation plan that--
(i) specifies the activities of Federal, State, and local
governments; and
(ii) includes cost estimates, schedules, and a commitment
of resources for the accomplishment of the implementation
plan.
(c) Approval of the Plan.--
(1) Approval by the governor.--Not later than 60 days after
receiving a Plan submitted by the Commission pursuant to
subsection (b), the Governor shall approve or disapprove the
Plan.
(2) Approval by the secretary.--A Plan approved by the
Governor under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the
Secretary for approval or disapproval. Not later than 30 days
after receipt of the Plan, the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the Plan.
(3) Criteria for decision.--The Governor and the Secretary
shall approve a Plan if--
(A) the Plan will adequately protect the significant
natural, cultural, historic, recreational, and scenic
resource values and functions of the Corridor;
(B) the Commission has afforded adequate opportunity for
public involvement in the preparation of the Plan; and
(C) the Secretary and the Governor receive adequate
assurances from appropriate officials of the State of South
Carolina that the recommended implementation program
identified in the Plan will be initiated within a reasonable
time after the date of approval of the Plan.
(d) Disapproval of Plan.--
(1) In general--If either the Secretary or the Governor
disapproves a Plan, the Secretary or the Governor, as
appropriate, shall--
(A) advise the Commission in writing of the reasons for the
disapproval; and
(B) recommend revisions to the Plan.
(2) Revision of disapproved plan.--Not later than 90 days
after the receipt of a notice of disapproval under paragraph
(1), the Commission shall revise and resubmit the Plan for
approval in accordance with subsection (c).
(e) Implementation of Plan.--
(1) In general.--After the Secretary and the Governor
review and approve a Plan, the Commission shall implement the
Plan by taking appropriate steps to--
(A) conserve, protect, restore, preserve, and interpret the
natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Corridor;
(B) promote the educational and recreational resources and
opportunities with respect to the Corridor that are
consistent with the resources of the Corridor; and
(C) support public and private efforts to achieve economic
revitalization, in a manner consistent with the goals of the
Plan.
(2) Steps.--The steps referred to in paragraph (1) may
include--
(A) assisting State and local governmental entities and
nonprofit organizations in planning and implementing
programs, projects, or activities in a manner consistent with
this Act, including visitor use facilities, tour routes, and
exhibits;
(B) encouraging, by appropriate means, enhanced economic
development in the corridor in a manner consistent with the
goals of the Plan; and
(C) promoting public awareness and appreciation for
historical, cultural, natural, recreational, and scenic
resources and associated values of the Corridor.
(f) Annual Reports.--
(1) Report of the commission.--As soon as practicable after
the end of the first fiscal year during which the Commission
is established, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall
submit a report to the Secretary. The report shall describe,
for the fiscal year that is the subject of the report--
(A) the expenses and income of the Commission; and
(B) a general description of the activities of the
Commission.
(2) Report of the secretary.--As soon as practicable after
the date on which the Commission submits a report to the
Secretary under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress that includes--
(A) for the fiscal year that is the subject of the report--
(i) a description of the loans, grants, and technical
assistance provided by the Secretary, and from other Federal
and non-Federal sources, to carry out the purposes of this
Act; and
(ii) an analysis of the adequacy of actions taken to carry
out this Act; and
(B) the anticipated funds and personnel to be made
available to carry out this Act by the Secretary for the
fiscal year following the fiscal year that is the subject of
the report.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Termination.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Commission shall terminate on the date that is 12 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Transfer of property.--Notwithstanding the provisions
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), any property or funds of the
Commission remaining upon the expiration of the Commission
shall be transferred by the Commission to the Secretary, to a
State or local government agency, to a private nonprofit
organization referred to in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which is exempt from income taxes under
section 501(a) of such Code, or to any combination of the
foregoing.
(b) Extensions.--The Commission may be extended for a
period of not more than 5 years beginning on the date
referred to in subsection (a) if, not later than 180 days
before such date--
(1) the Commission determines such extension is necessary
to carry out this Act;
(2) the Commission submits the proposed extension to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate before the termination date; and
(3) the Secretary and the Governor each approve such
extension.
SEC. 9. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) Assistance.--Upon request of the Commission, and
subject to the availability of funds directly appropriated
for this purpose, or made available on a reimbursable basis,
the Secretary shall provide administrative, technical,
financial, development, and operations assistance. Such
assistance may include--
(1) general administrative support in planning, finance,
personnel, procurement, property management, environmental
and historical compliance, and land acquisition;
(2) personnel;
(3) office space and equipment;
(4) planning and design services for visitor use
facilities, trails, interpretive exhibits, publications,
signs, and natural resource management;
(5) development and construction assistance, including
visitor use facilities, trails, river use and access
facilities, scenic byways, signs, waysides, and
rehabilitation of historic structures; and
(6) operations functions, including interpretation and
visitor services, maintenance, and natural resource
management services conducted within the boundaries of the
corridor.
(b) Loans, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements.--For the
purposes of assisting in the development and implementation
of the Plan, the Secretary may, in consultation with the
Commission, make loans and grants to, and enter into
cooperative agreements with, the State of South Carolina (or
a political subdivision thereof), private nonprofit
organizations, corporations, or any person.
(c) Land Transfers.--The Secretary may accept transfers of
real property from the Commission within the boundaries of
the corridor as established in the Corridor Management Action
Plan.
SEC. 10. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES.
Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the corridor shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary and the Commission with
respect to such activities;
(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the Commission in
carrying out their duties under this Act and, to the maximum
extent practicable, coordinate such activities with the
carrying out of such duties; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support
such activities in a manner which the Commission determines
will not have an adverse effect on the corridor.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this Act.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the funding
provided to the Commission to carry out this Act for any year
may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of--
(A) the expenditures of the Commission for administrative
matters for that year;
(B) the expenditures of the Commission for the development
and implementation of the Corridor Management Action Plan for
that year; and
(C) the expenditures of the Commission for land acquisition
for that year.
(2) Nonfederal share.--The non-Federal share of the
expenditures referred to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (1) may be in the form of cash, services, or in-
kind contributions, fairly valued.
____
Exhibit 1
South Carolina State Museum,
Columbia, SC, April 19, 1994.
Joan Davis,
Community Development Division, South Carolina Department of
Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, SC.
Dear Joan: I am intrigued with the concept of developing a
Heritage Corridor in fourteen counties along South Carolina's
western boundary. Stretching from Charleston to the mountains
the proposed corridor would take in all of the elements that
have characterized South Carolina for the past three
centuries.
Beginning in Charleston, one of the most cosmopolitan of
American cities before 1860, the corridor follows the route
of the old South Carolina Railroad through Colleton, Bamberg,
Barnwell and into Aiken County. When completed in 1831 this
was the longest railroad in the world. Prior to the Civil War
this area was dotted with cotton plantations, the predominant
economic factor in the state's antebellum years. In Aiken's
Horsecreek Valley the state's textile industry was born
during the 1830's. Only a few miles away the Savannah River
Site was the nation's supplier of plutonium for nuclear
weapons during the Cold War years. From North August, the
terminus of the old South Carolina Railroad, the proposed
corridor follows the Savannah Valley to the foothills in
Oconee County.
Also a major cotton producing area before 1860, Edgefield
County was home to ten governors, a remarkable number for a
small county. Beginning in the 1820's the production of
alkaline glazed stoneware began in Edgefield and subsequently
spread throughout the South. Originally produced as
utilitarian storage ware, today Edgefield pottery is a highly
prized collectible.
The corridor continues along the Savannah Valley through
once prosperous cotton fields into Anderson County, a major
center of the state's textile industry. Around Anderson one
finds both traditional textile companies as well as a recent
influx of major multinational corporations.
The last section of the corridor takes one to the foothills
of the Appalachian Mountains. A journey through the proposed
corridor encompasses all of South Carolina's past and
present. From cosmopolitan Charleston in the 1700's with its
wealthy merchants and rice planters to the challenges facing
low income residents of the Appalachians, the corridor
crosses not only the state's entire geography, but also
encompasses all of the state's people.
Historic sites, natural resources, cultural diversity and
modern manufacturing successes are all part of the proposed
corridor. A visitor who journeys through the corridor
certainly departs with an understanding of South Carolina's
history and development, as well as an appreciation for the
state's diverse geography and natural features.
This proposed corridor has several components of national
significance. As the cotton culture spread through this area
more and more planters became entrenched in defending
slavery, contributing to the forces that lead to the Civil
War. Leading proslavery advocates John C. Calhoun and James
Henry Hammond lived in the corridor. As residences of the
area their theories on states rights and slavery evolved from
personal experiences.
After the war the development of the textile industry in
the corridor changed the focus of South Carolina's economy
from an agricultural to an industrial base, a phenomena which
subsequently spread across the South. Finally, the location
of the Savannah river Site in the center of the corridor
reflects not only the Cold War strategy of the United States,
but also the challenge of the cleanup facing all the nuclear
production facilities across the country.
Sincerely,
Rodger E. Stroup,
Director of Collections
and Interpretation.
____
Exhibit 2
State of South Carolina,
Office of the Governor,
Columbia, SC, April 1, 1994.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: Developing the economies of the rural areas
of our state often requires that we employ creative non-
traditional economic development methods. One such method is
the application of a deliberate strategy to capitalize on the
economic value of the rich cultural heritage and natural
resources embodied in many of the rural areas of our state.
Cultural or heritage tourism is one of the fastest growing
trends in tourism. The resulting potential for job creation
and tourism-related investment, if properly managed, can be a
significant factor in the economic growth of these rural
communities.
The proposed designation of a fourteen country region of
our state as a South Carolina National Heritage Corridor
represents a significant step forward in our efforts to
recognize and capture this valuable economic resource. This
is an area rich in cultural and natural resources with an
important American story to tell. What happened along this
corridor set in motion a style of socio-economic development
that spread throughout the lower South and Southwest and
eventually led to the industrialization of the region as well
as war between the states. It tells the story of the
development of agriculture, industry and transportation in
the South.
To direct this effort from the state level, I have
designated the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
through its Community Development program, to be responsible
for staffing this effort and providing a broad array of
support for the South Carolina Heritage Corridor.
We all recognize the tremendous importance and long-range
benefit of the initiative for South Carolina, and are
particularly pleased that the proposed area includes your
hometown of Edgefield.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.,
Governor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am privileged today to join with
Senator Thurmond in introducing the South Carolina National Heritage
Corridor Act of 1994. This act aims to protect, restore, and promote
the South Carolina National Historic Corridor--a 200-mile-long, 13-
county swath in the western part of the State, running along the
Savannah River Valley from the foothills of the Piedmont to North
Augusta, at which point it follows the route of the old Hamburg-to-
Charleston railroad all the way to Charleston.
This act has several objectives. It would protect the significant
land and water resources of the national heritage corridor. It would
support, through financial and technical assistance, the State and
local governments, as well as the private sector, in developing a
management action plan for the corridor. And it would create a
management framework to bring together the State and local governments
to jointly develop policies and programs to conserve and enhance the
cultural, natural, economic, recreational, and scenic resources of the
corridor.
Mr. President, the historic corridor concept has been used by a
variety of public and private groups across the Nation to encourage
historic and natural preservation, and to promote tourism and economic
revitalization. The approach has been used successfully in the
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, in the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, in the
Lackawanna River Valley in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. The heritage
corridor concept offers a flexible way for government and private
organizations to work together to promote economic growth and job
creation.
Mr. President, with industry concentrated in a limited number of
urban areas, it is no secret that small, scenic towns and rural areas
are looking to tourism as a means of strengthening and diversifying
their declining economies. The heritage corridor concept offers an
opportunity for many communities to work cooperatively and pool their
resources in order to boost tourism.
The South Carolina Heritage Corridor originated with a tourism
committee in the city of Abbeville, and has grown to include 14
counties and over 40 towns and rural communities. This is a grassroots
movement that has captured the imagination and enthusiasm of citizens
across the western part of my State. The South Carolina Heritage
Corridor is well conceived and holds tremendous promise for my State. I
urge my colleagues' support for this important bill.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS:
S. 2039. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey
the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the corning national fish hatchery conveyance act of 1994
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing
legislation that would transfer the property rights in the Corning
National Fish Hatchery from the Federal Government to the State of
Arkansas. In 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service closed this hatchery
because of budget constraints. Because the State of Arkansas was
interested in maintaining the Corning facility as part of its State
hatchery system, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a memorandum
of understanding with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
transferring the operation of the Corning Hatchery to the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission. The hatchery has even been renamed the William H.
Donham State Fish Hatchery.
Mr. President, its time to give the State of Arkansas clear title to
this property. The State has been operating and maintaining it for 10
years without any Federal funding and it has become an important
component of the State's fisheries program. The proposed transfer not
only has the support of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission but also
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and
look forward to its speedy passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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 ``Corning National Fish
Hatchery Conveyance Act of 1994.''
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF THE CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
(a) Conveyance Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without reimbursement
and by no later than December 31, 1994, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the property
described in subsection (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture
program.
(b) Property Described.--The property refereed to in
subsection (a) is the property formally known as the Corning
National Fish Hatchery, and now known as the William H.
Donham State Fish Hatchery, located one mile west of Corning,
Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in Clay County,
Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres, (more or less) and all
improvements and related personal property under the control
of the Secretary that is located on that property, including
buildings, structures, and equipment.
(c) Reversionary Interest of United States.--If after the
conveyance required by subsection (a) any of the property
described in subsection (b) is used for purposes other than
as described in subsection (a), all right, title, and
interest conveyed under this section shall revert to the
United States.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr.
Sasser, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Mathews):
S. 2040. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
assignment of employees of federally funded research and development
centers and Federal employees between Federal agencies and federally
funded research and development centers; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
amending the intergovernmental personnel act
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to
amend the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to allow employees of all
federally funded research and development centers [FFRDC's] to utilize
the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to be placed in Federal agencies
and Federal employees to use the act to be placed at all FFRDC's. I am
pleased that Senator Domenici, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Sasser,
Senator Craig, and Senator Mathews have joined me in cosponsoring this
bill. I am also pleased that my House colleague from New Mexico,
Congressman Schiff, is today introducing identical legislation in the
House together with Congresswoman Lloyd.
The specific problem which I am trying to address in this bill arises
as a result of the change in the nature of the contract at Sandia
National Laboratories last year as that laboratory transitioned from a
no fee contract under AT&T management to an incentive fee contract
under Martin Marietta management. Sandia employees have long served
with distinction in a host of Federal agencies under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act. They have served at the Department of
Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the
intelligence community, and elsewhere. They bring special expertise in
a broad range of technical areas to the executive branch.
Unfortunately, unless this bill is passed, that long history of
service will be disrupted starting this fall. The reason is that the
new contract with Martin Marietta is an incentive fee contract, whereas
the old contract with AT&T was a no-profit, no-fee contract. Because of
the way the Intergovernmental Personnel Act currently is drafted, this
has made Sandians ineligible to utilize the IPA to be placed in Federal
agencies. This is clearly an unintended consequence of contract
management reform at the Department of Energy. And I believe that both
the Department of Energy and other agencies that have benefited from
the involvement of Sandia employees in their offices support the change
I am proposing. I also understand that there is support for this bill
within the Office of Personnel Management.
The bill will also immediately allow employees of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory to utilize the IPA mechanism to be placed in Federal
agencies. Like Sandia, they lost their eligibility a decade ago when
the initial Oak Ridge contractor, Union Carbide, declined to continue
to operate that laboratory and Martin Marietta won the competition to
operate the lab on an incentive fee basis. Depending on who wins the
contract to operate Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, a
competition currently underway, Federal agencies would also benefit if
this bill is enacted by being able to utilize the IPA mechanism to
bring in employees from that laboratory as well.
In light of the thrust of management reform at the Department of
Energy, which is toward the use of incentive fee contracts with private
sector contractors, as opposed to continued use of university or
nonprofit contractors, I believe many of the other DOE FFRDC's will
soon also require the statutory change I am proposing. It strikes me as
incongruous that FFRDC's who happen to be run by universities or
nonprofits, whether on a fixed fee or incentive fee basis, as well as
FFRDC's who are run by private sector firms on a fixed fee basis,
qualify to use the IPA. But FFRDC's run by private sector firms on a
incentive fee basis do not. This needs to be corrected. And our bill
would do that.
I hope that this bill can be given prompt consideration, and look
forward to working with my colleagues to obtain its enactment this
year.
I request unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2040
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ASSIGNMENTS OF EMPLOYEES BETWEEN FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CENTERS.
(a) Authority.--Section 3371(4) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(C) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) a federally funded research and development
center.''.
(b) Provisions Governing Assignments.--Section 3372 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(e) Under regulations prescribed pursuant to section 3376
of this title--
``(1) an assignment of an employee of a Federal agency to
an other organization, and an employee so assigned, shall be
treated in the same way as an assignment of an employee of a
Federal agency to a State or local government, and an
employee so assigned, is treated under the provisions of this
subchapter governing an assignment of an employee of a
Federal agency to a State or local government; and
``(2) an assignment of an employee of an other organization
to a Federal agency, and an employee so assigned shall be
treated in the same way as an assigned of an employee of a
State or local government to a Federal agency, and an
employee so assigned, is treated under the provisions of this
subchapter governing an assignment of an employee of a State
or local government to a Federal agency.''.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Roth):
S. 2041. A bill to encourage beneficiary developing countries to
provide adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
rights of intellectual property owners fairness facilitation act of
1994
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, along with Senator Roth, I am
introducing legislation to address a problem that costs American
industry and workers billions of dollars every year: piracy of American
intellectual property rights by foreign countries. The administration
has placed an annual price tag on foreign piracy of American ideas and
inventions at $50 billion. Every dollar lost to foreign violations
undermines our economy and puts American jobs at risk.
For many years I have been concerned that our trade policy has been
at odds with our development policy because so many recipients of U.S.
benefit programs--such as duty-free Generalized System of Preferences
[GSP] import privileges--have habitually denied adequate protection for
the fruits of American invention and creativity.
The bill we are introducing today would create a stronger link
between the newly negotiated international GATT standard for
intellectual property and the GSP development program. To preserve
benefits under the GSP program, the bill would require countries to
comply with the new international standards for intellectual property
in a more timely way than the GATT requires.
Mr. President, the negotiators at the Uruguay round of the GATT
achieved some real progress in the area of intellectual property
rights. The Round's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights--commonly called the TRIPS Agreement--represents an
important milestone in the pursuit of strong worldwide intellectual
property protection. For the first time, it establishes important
international intellectual property standards.
Unfortunately, the agreement gives foreign countries a very long
time--up to 11 years in some cases--to comply with those standards
although the United States has only 1 year to come into compliance with
the TRIPS obligations under the GATT.
While the newly negotiated intellectual property standards are
relatively good, Mr. President, 11 years is simply too long a
transition period. Because the GATT negotiations are completed, there
is nothing the United States can now do within the context of the GATT
to bring about an earlier compliance date.
However, we can use our own benefit programs to urge earlier
compliance. We ought to use every appropriate tool at our disposal to
expedite compliance with those standards.
GSP is one such tool. GSP is not a right; it is a benefit. Nearly 150
countries benefit from the GSP program, which enables some 4,400
products to enter the United States duty free. The program creates
significant leverage for our Government because we can unilaterally
confer and deny GSP status to eligible countries without being
subjected to the GATT's multilateral dispute settlement mechanism. It
is entirely appropriate that we use this powerful tool to encourage
developing countries to come into compliance more expeditiously with
the international standards set by the GATT.
Mr. President, the new GATT TRIPS Agreement enters into force in
1995. All compliance deadlines follow that 1995 date. Under the GATT,
developing countries will have 5 years, or until the year 2000, to come
into compliance with the new international intellectual property
standards. They will have an additional 5 years, or until the year
2005, to change their laws to meet the product patent protection
standard.
The bill I am introducing today would require developing countries to
come into compliance with all TRIPS standards--including patents--
within 2 years, or by the year 1997. The President would need to
certify 1 year after TRIPS enters into force that developing countries
are at least making ``overall, significant'' progress toward
implementing the TRIPS standards. If they do not, they will not be able
to preserve their GSP benefits.
Under the GATT, least developed countries will have 11 years, or
until the year 2006, to meet the TRIPS standards. I recognize that
these countries may have difficulties in meeting even the minimal TRIPS
standards as quickly as developed or even other developing countries.
That is why under my bill, the least developed countries will have 5
years, or until the year 2000, to change their laws to meet the
international standard. If they do not, they will not retain their GSP
benefits.
Why is this bill necessary? Because our current GSP law is not tough
enough to bring the developing nations of the world into compliance
with the TRIPS standards more quickly. Under existing law, when making
decisions about a country's GSP eligibility, the President need only
take into consideration the extent to which a country is providing
``adequate and effective means under its laws for foreign nationals to
secure, to exercise, and to enforce exclusive rights in intellectual
property * * *.'' The existing law does not specify deadlines for
compliance. It is not explicitly linked to the new international GATT
standard on intellectual property. It will not create real pressure to
bring the developing countries of the world into compliance sooner.
Mr. President, although it has been on the books for many years, the
existing law has yielded extremely limited results. To it's credit, the
United States Trade Representative has worked under the existing law to
secure improvements in intellectual property protection. It did suspend
a limited amount of GSP benefits from Brazil, India, and Thailand
because of their failure to provide adequate intellectual property
protection. The Administration considered Thailand and India to be the
most flagrant violators of American intellectual property rights by
designating them ``priority countries'' for 3 years in a row and
suspended some benefits. Brazil, which had long been of concern,
received the same ``priority'' designation last year. Consequently,
over the years, some GSP benefits were suspended for these countries.
However, although some benefits were removed, India continued
importing into the United States almost 80 percent of all eligible
products free of duty last year. Thailand continued to import over 65
percent of its products duty-free. Brazil continued to import over 72
percent of eligible products into the United States duty-free in 1933.
Unfortunately, the loss of some GSP benefits brought about only
limited improvements. Intellectual property protection in these and
many other countries is still woefully inadequate. Tremendous progress
still needs to be made.
Even more, while the USTR has documented specific deficiencies in
intellectual property rights throughout the world in it's annual report
outlining major barriers to trade, not one country--other than the
three I have already mentioned--has ever lost even a portion of its GSP
benefits for violations of intellectual property rights. Nonetheless,
their intellectual property laws remain inadequate.
Clearly, the message is not getting through to the offending
countries that the United States expects GSP beneficiary countries to
clean up their act on intellectual property protection. The bill I am
introducing today will help the USTR get that message across.
Mr. President, I do not want or intend to tie the President's hands.
I know that the President and the USTR share my goal of bringing about
greater cooperation from the international community on this important
issue. When I discussed this issue with USTR Kantor at a hearing last
year in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, he
said the administration--
should look at the possibility of using every tool at its
disposal to convince countries that they should protect
intellectual property as well as investment as well as live
up to their agreements in a way that would be beneficial not
only to our workers and our business but beneficial to them
if they expect to receive the kind of assistance that they
have been receiving.
I want to help the administration convince these countries to provide
such protection.
Nonetheless, I recognize there may be situations in which the
administration may need to make an exception for overriding reasons.
That is why my bill includes a waiver which would enable the President
to grant privileges to a country which would otherwise be disqualified
if he determines it would be in the United States' national economic
interest.
The bill is not intended to restrict the President's ability to ask
countries to go beyond the TRIPS standards. It is not intended to
restrict his ability to deny GSP benefits before the deadlines
established in the bill.
I also recognize that foreign countries may need some assistance to
help them improve intellectual property protection. To that end, the
bill outlines additional measures--such as technical assistance
programs through the Department of Commerce and Agency for
International Development--that can be implemented to help countries
move in the right direction.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today helps address
many of the problems encumbering the present system of intellectual
property rights protection. It establishes common, minimal standards--
the TRIPS standards--which all countries should be able to meet. It
sets a common, predictable U.S. response for each country which fails
to meet those standards. It reduces the extended period of time
developing countries--those who receive American foreign aid and import
products into the United States duty-free--would be exempt from the
TRIPS standards. Finally, it gives the President the flexibility to
make exceptions for least developed countries and others he deems would
be in our national economic interest.
The bill has been endorsed by the Intellectual Property Committee,
the Intellectual Property Owners, the International Intellectual
Property Alliance, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and
Absolute Entertainment, Inc. I ask unanimous consent that copies of
their letters endorsing this bill be included in the Record. I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2041
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 ``Rights of Intellectual
Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) United States industry loses billions of dollars each
year to countries that do not provide adequate protection of
intellectual property rights.
(2) According to the Department of Commerce, United States
companies lose approximately $50,000,000,000 annually as a
result of violations of intellectual property rights by
foreign countries.
(3) It is in the interest of the United States to leverage
its foreign policy to achieve certain trade policy
objectives, such as adequate, effective, and timely
protection of intellectual property rights.
(4) Several countries that qualify under the generalized
system of preferences provisions have been identified under
section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242) as
countries that do not provide adequate and effective
protection of patents, copyrights, and trademarks or deny
fair and equitable market access to United States persons
that rely on intellectual property rights protection.
(5) Several countries that receive United States foreign
assistance also have been identified under section 182 of the
Trade Act of 1974 as countries that do not provide adequate
and effective protection of patents, copyrights, and
trademarks or deny fair and equitable market access to United
States persons that rely on intellectual property rights
protection.
SEC. 3. COUNTRIES INELIGIBLE FOR GSP TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--
(1) Implementation of agreement on trips.--Section 502(b)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6),
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and'',
(C) by inserting immediately after paragraph (7) the
following new paragraph:
``(8) if such country is not implementing parts I, II, and
III of the Agreement on TRIPS--
``(A) beginning on the date that is 1 year (2 years in the
case of a country with respect to which the President has
made a qualified certification) after the date the Agreement
enters into force and effect, or
``(B) beginning on the date that is 5 years after the date
the Agreement enters into force and effect in the case of a
least-developed beneficiary developing country.'',
(D) in the last sentence, by striking ``(4), (6), (7), and
(8)'' and inserting ``(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8)'', and
(E) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For
purposes of paragraph (8)(A), a `qualified certification'
means a certification by the President to the Congress that
is made within 1 year after the date the Agreement on TRIPS
enters into force and effect and that states that a country
is making overall significant progress in implementing parts
I, II, and III of the Agreement.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 502(a) of such Act (19
U.S.C. 2462(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) For purposes of this title--
``(A) the term `Agreement on TRIPS' means the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights entered
into as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements, and
``(B) the term `Uruguay Round Agreements' means the trade
agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral
trade negotiations under the auspices of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.''.
(b) Designation as Eligible GSP Country.--Section 502 of
such Act (19 U.S.C. 2462) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Designation Where Country Adheres to the Agreement on
TRIPS; Annual Reports.--
``(1) Designation as beneficiary developing country.--A
country--
``(A) which has been denied designation as a beneficiary
developing country on the basis of subsection (b)(8), or
``(B) with respect to which such designation has been
withdrawn or suspended based on subsection (b)(8),
may be designated as a beneficiary developing country under
this title, if the President determines that the country is
fully implementing parts I, II, and III of the Agreement on
TRIPS and reports the determination to the Congress.
``(2) Annual report.--Not later than the date that is 1
year after the date the Agreement on TRIPS enters into force
and effect, and annually thereafter, the President shall
determine whether each country designated as a beneficiary
developing country under this title is fully implementing
parts I, II, and III of the Agreement and shall report such
findings to the Congress.''.
SEC. 4. COORDINATION OF TRADE POLICY AND FOREIGN POLICY.
(a) Other Efforts To Improve Protection of Intellectual
Property Rights.--The United States Trade Representative
shall notify the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development on a regular basis of any country
which is not fully implementing parts I, II, and III of the
Agreement on TRIPS.
(b) Encouraging Implementation of Agreement on TRIPS.--The
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development
shall cooperate with the United States Trade Representative
by encouraging any country that receives foreign assistance
and is not fully implementing the Agreement on TRIPS to enact
and enforce laws that will enable the country to implement
the Agreement on TRIPS. To further this objective, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the head of each United
States diplomatic mission abroad to include intellectual
property rights protection as a priority objective of the
mission.
(c) Other Actions To Encourage Protection of Intellectual
Property Rights.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the President is authorized to undertake the following
actions, where appropriate, with respect to a developing
country to encourage and help the country improve the
protection of intellectual property rights:
(1) Provide Overseas Private Investment Corporation
insurance for intellectual property assets.
(2) Require foreign assistance programs to provide support
for the development of national intellectual property laws
and regulations and for the development of the infrastructure
necessary to protect intellectual property rights.
(3) Establish technical cooperation committees on
intellectual property standards within regional
organizations.
(4) Establish, as a joint effort between the United States
Government and the private sector, a council to facilitate
and provide intellectual property-related technical
assistance through the Agency for International Development
and the Department of Commerce.
(5) Require United States representatives to multilateral
lending institutions to seek the establishment of programs
within the institutions to support strong intellectual
property rights protection in recipient countries that have
fully implemented parts I, II, and III of the Agreement on
TRIPS.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Agreement on trips.--The term ``Agreement on TRIPS''
means the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights entered into as part of the trade agreements
resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
(2) Developing country.--The term ``developing country''
means any country which is--
(A) eligible to be designated a beneficiary developing
country pursuant to title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), or
(B) designated as a least-developed beneficiary developing
country pursuant to section 504(c)(6) of such Act (19 U.S.C.
2464(c)(6)).
Intellectual Property Committee,
Washington, DC, April 18, 1994.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Intellectual Property
Committee (IPC) whose members represent the broad spectrum of
private sector U.S. intellectual property interests, endorses
the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 1994, which you
recently introduced.
Your legislation demonstrates a clear understanding that
strong worldwide protection of U.S. intellectual property is
critical to the continued competitiveness of U.S. industry
and to our nation's ability to create good jobs here in the
United States. The intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement
which was recently completed as part of the GATT Uruguay
Round of trade negotiations, provides for the first time
international standards of protection and enforcement across
a broad range of intellectual property elements. When fully
implemented, the TRIPS Agreement will require all countries--
developing as well as industrialized countries--to provide
strong intellectual property protection. Unfortunately,
developing countries do not have to implement the TRIPS
provisions in their countries' laws and regulations for five
to ten years. Until then, these countries will be able to
continue to pirate U.S. technology and copy our creative
works without fear of any international sanctions.
The legislation that you have introduced properly seeks to
accelerate TRIPS implementation in GSP-recipient countries by
linking continued eligibility for the U.S. program to full
and accelerated implementation of TRIPS-level protection.
Through such linkage, your legislation will provide U.S.
negotiators with the leverage necessary to gain improved
worldwide protection of U.S. intellectual property. In the
absence of this type of leverage, the United States will face
real difficulty in achieving the critical goal of improved
worldwide intellectual property protection in a timely
manner. In addition, your legislation will underscore the
importance of adequate and effective property protection in
stimulating economic growth in GSP-beneficiary countries,
which will lead to expanded export opportunities for U.S.
goods and services.
The IPC commends your continued efforts on behalf of strong
intellectual property protection and economic growth in the
United States.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Levy,
IPC Counsel.
Jacques J. Gorlin,
Consulting Economist.
____
Intellectual Property Owners,
Washington, DC, April 20, 1994.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: Intellectual Property Owners
strongly endorses your proposal for legislation that will use
GSP to encourage countries to comply at an early date with
the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
U.S. industry and the U.S. economy will benefit enormously
if Congress can stop the losses that are resulting from
inadequate and ineffective protection of intellectual
property rights abroad. According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, such losses are about $50 billion annually.
The Uruguay round GATT agreement gives development and
least-developed countries 5 to 11 years to implement the
TRIPS standards. If GSP can be used as an incentive for
countries to implement within 2 to 5 years, U.S. industry
will avoid many billions of dollars of losses. In the long
run, early adoption of standards to encourage research,
development, and creativity will strengthen the world economy
and help all countries.
Sincerely,
Roger S. Smith,
President.
____
International Intellectual
Property Alliance,
Washington, DC, April 21, 1994.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the International
Intellectual Property Alliance and its eight association
members, we applaud your leadership in introducing the
International Intellectual Property Protection Act of 1994
which seeks to assist in ensuring that less developed country
members of the GATT/WTO bring their domestic intellectual
property regimes into compliance with their TRIPS obligations
before the expiration of the 4- and 10-year transition
periods permitted them under the TRIPS text.
The IIPA represents the U.S. copyright-based industries
which are vitally interested in securing adequate and
effective protection for their copyrighted works--movies,
computer software, books and journals, music and audio
recordings--and fair and equitable market access to those
products protected by copyright laws. As the attached Fact
Sheet on our industries demonstrates, the U.S. copyright
industries are growing faster, employ new workers faster, and
contribute more significantly to U.S. exports than all but a
very few sectors of our economy. At the same time, worldwide
piracy is these industries' most acute market access barrier.
They lose an estimated $15-$17 billion annually to piracy
worldwide--an inexcusable drain on the U.S. economy and
threat to our international competitiveness.
The TRIPS Agreement has several major inadequacies, one of
which is its overly long transition periods--in the case of
copyrights the period is generally four years longer than in
developed countries (least developed countries have a total
additional ten years). Many of our trading partners that
continue to allow widespread piracy within their borders are,
as a result of U.S. bilateral pressure and engagement under
Special 301 and under the existing GSP Program, are very
close to remedying these problems. We cite as examples
Thailand, Turkey, Egypt, Venezuela and many others. Your
Bill would deny continued participation in the GSP Program
unless TRIPS-level protection were introduced before the
expiration of these transition periods. The Bill is
intended to provide added leverage to the U.S. government
to ensure that continued losses were not sustained as a
result of necessary resort to the transition period. By
linking acceleration of GSP beneficiary countries to
earlier implementation of the TRIPS obligations, leverage
may be increased and losses to the U.S. economy reduced.
While we share and support the objectives of your Bill
which is fully consistent with IIPA's goal to accelerate
TRIPS compliance, there are two important clarifications/
modifications that we would urge you to make. First, we urge
you to make clear in your Bill that adherence to the TRIPS
obligations alone, and without more, does not necessarily
meet the test of ``adequate and effective'' protection and
enforcement which is the standard to which all GSP
beneficiaries must adhere. We have urged the Administration
to make this critical change in the current GSP Program (and
in other trade/IP programs) in recognition that the TRIPS
standards are deficient in some respects and, moreover, tend
to be static while technology is rapidly changing. What is
``adequate and effective'' protection will, in the copyright
area certainly, change rapidly with technology in the next
years. We believe that any legislation in this area must make
clear that adequate and effective protection must be afforded
by GSP beneficiaries, notwithstanding that the country might
have implemented TRIPS or the provisions of any particular
multilateral or bilateral agreement. We have also proposed to
the Administration making the same changes to the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (which operates similarly to the
GSP Program specifically for the CBI region) as well as to
the Andean Trade Preferences Act.
Second, we are concerned that by establishing fixed time
frames for implementation and rigid statutory grace periods,
leverage can actually be diminished with countries that are
capable of earlier TRIPS compliance. We understand that the
Administration shares this view and we hope that you and the
Administration can reach an accord that permits flexibility
at the same time as ensuring the result that your Bill and
our industries seek.
We support as well the objectives of Section 4 of the bill
to bring into coordination the activities of AID and other
agencies in ensuring full protection for U.S. intellectual
property. We strongly believe that all agencies must work
together to ensure full worldwide protection for one of our
country's most important resources--its creativity.
We acknowledge and commend all your many contributions to
the protection of intellectual property over the years,
including the legislation you have just introduced.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Smith,
Executive Director and General Counsel.
____
Absolute Entertainment, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, April 19, 1994.
Re proposed legislation regarding generalized system of
preferences [GSP].
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: I have been discussing with Stuart
Brown and Cathy Carpino of your staff the bill which I
understand you are planning to introduce which will tie
receipt of Generalized System of Preferences (``GSP'')
benefits by beneficiary developing countries to improved
protection of intellectual property rights in such countries.
I strongly support your bill, as does my company, Absolute
Entertainment, Inc.
Absolute Entertainment, Inc., an Upper Saddle River company
with 73 employees, is one of 170 U.S. companies which develop
and sell Nintendo video games. Absolute's success is
dependent on its ability to reap the rewards of the video
games which it develops. Unfortunately, Absolute, like many
creators of video games, can not sell its products in many
less developed countries because pirates have virtually
saturated these markets. Accordingly, Absolute strongly
supports your bill because, over time, it should enable
Absolute to sell its products in markets from which it is
presently excluded.
The U.S. video game industry has been severely injured by
copyright piracy in GSP countries. Your bill should provide
these countries with an incentive to improve the protection
of intellectual property rights. It is only fair that
countries which receive the right to export products to the
United States on a duty-free basis should be required to
provide strong intellectual property protection for U.S.
products.
I am particularly concerned that less developed countries
rely on the inordinately long transition periods for
implementing the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (``TRIPS''). Your
bill will give the United States Trade Representative
leverage to obtain more expeditious implementation of the
TRIPS provisions.
We hope you are able to emphasize that beneficiary
developing countries should not construe your bill as
indicating that the TRIPS provisions constitute the optimum
level of intellectual property protection, but rather the
reverse--that these are the minimum acceptable standards of
protection. In fact, TRIPS falls short of what U.S. companies
like Absolute need for adequate and effective protection of
their intellectual property rights. It is my understanding
that this bill, when passed into law, will not preclude the
United States Trade Representative from seeking higher levels
of intellectual property protection than those in TRIPS, and
we recommend the bill or its legislative history make this
point clear!
I am arranging for samples of authentic and counterfeit
Absolute-produced video games and color prints to be provided
to you by Arter & Hadden for your use during introduction of
the bill. Please ask a member of your staff to contact Ingrid
Voorhees of Arter & Hadden at (202) 775/7981 to return the
samples.
The staff and management of Absolute Entertainment
sincerely appreciate the interest you have shown in
protecting U.S. intellectual property rights. This is an
issue which is near and dear to all of our hearts. U.S.
companies need this protection if we are to be able to
compete in international markets.
Best regards.
Yours sincerely,
James I. Charne,
Vice President, Legal
and Business Affairs.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my good
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in cosponsoring legislation on an issue
I feel very strongly about--the need for early and full adoption of the
Uruguay round agreement on intellectual property rights. While these
new rules generally represent a significant achievement and will be of
major benefit to U.S. inventors and other holders intellectual
property, there is one serious overall problem with the agreement that
must be addressed--the long transition periods that are provided to
developing countries. The legislation I am cosponsoring today offers
one approach to addressing this problem by tying future GSP benefits to
the extent to which a developing country has fully implemented key
parts of this agreement.
Infringement of U.S. intellectual property is no small matter. The
Commerce Department has estimated that U.S. companies lose $50 billion
every year from intellectual property piracy. Much of this piracy
occurs in the developing world where three are often few, if any, rules
protecting intellectual property rights, and little enforcement of such
rules where they exist. Under the Uruguay round agreement, developing
countries can wait up to 10 years before fully implementing the new
TRIPS agreement. I think most of us would agree that this is
unacceptable. Consequently, we must look at what steps we can take to
accelerate this process of implementation.
It is my intention to ensure that this problem is effectively
addressed in the implementing legislation on the Uruguay round and I
look forward to working with Senator Lautenberg and the rest of my
colleagues on this very important matter.
____________________