[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11090-S11094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 2098. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to assist the
development of small business concerns owned and controlled by women,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.
THE WOMEN'S BUSINESS TRAINING CENTERS ACT OF 1996
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Women's
Business Training Centers Act of 1996, a companion to H.R. 4071
introduced by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson on September 12.
As many of us recognize, women-owned businesses are one of the
fastest growing, highly stable, and job-producing segments of our U.S.
economy. At the same time, I am afraid they are also one of the most
perceptually under-valued segments of our business sector; there are
far too many who have overlooked this extraordinary group of business
owners.
Let me cite some phenomenal statistics about women-owned businesses.
Between 1982 and 1987, women-owned firms increased by 57.5 percent,
more than twice the rate of all U.S. businesses during that period. In
1987 they numbered approximately 4.1 million. By 1996, women-owned
businesses had grown to approximately 8 million businesses and employed
18.5 million people, which is one out of every four U.S. company
workers and more than the Fortune 500 companies employed worldwide.
They generated an estimated $2.3 trillion in sales and are in every
industrial sector.
The National Association of Women Business Owners [NAWBO] reports
that the growth of women-owned firms continues to outpace overall
business growth by nearly two to one, and that their top growth
industries are construction, wholesale trade, transportation/
communications, agribusiness, and manufacturing. Women entrepreneurs
are taking their firms into the global marketplace at the same rate as
all U.S. business owners. Women-owned businesses have sustaining power
with 40 percent remaining in business for 12 years or more. As
spectacular, women own 30 percent of all businesses and are projected
to own 50 percent of all businesses by the year 2000.
These statistics are truly impressive. They also emphasize that
women-owned businesses have achieved these monumental feats because of
business acumen, as well as self-reliance, ingenuity, common sense, and
dogged determination. I say this because there still remain enormous
obstacles for women who want to establish businesses; in particular,
access to capitol and technical assistance.
One of the most beneficial programs designed to assist women business
owners is the Women's Business Training Centers in the Small Business
Administration [SBA] to provide training, counseling, and technical
assistance. I know personally how very beneficial this demonstration
program has been in my State of New Mexico. I have talked with the
women clients and toured their businesses, and thanks to the able
leadership of the centers' personnel, these businesses are growing
financially, employing new personnel, and creating new markets for
their goods and services.
The Women's Business Training Centers Program is one of the most
needed, best utilized, and tangibly successful activities I have seen.
It is also one of the smallest programs in the SBA; the Administration
requested only $2 million this year, although I am hopeful Congress
will see fit to fully fund it at twice this amount. In my estimation,
this program should be expanded so that the SBA can establish the
business centers in all of the States, particularly those 22 States
that currently have no sites.
The program is slated to end in 1997. I believe this would be a real
disservice to America's women business owners. Therefore, this bill
will permanently authorize the program, increase the centers' funding
cycle from 3 to 5 years, and increase its presently authorized funding
level from $4 to $8 million.
I believe the time has come for Congress to recognize how absolutely
essential women entrepreneurs are to the American economy. As I stated
previously, women business owners have achieved enormous successes
because of their independent spirit and skills. We can, however, offer
some valuable assistance for a very minimal amount of funding. I
believe it fair to say that the return on that investment will far
exceed just about any other we may make.
As the National Association of Women Business Owner's fact sheet
points out, ``the greatest challenge of business ownership for women is
being taken seriously.'' The statistics and proven record of women
business owners speaks for itself, and I invite my colleagues to
support this effort in their behalf.
This bill, which is going to continue to expand upon the concept of
having women business training centers, should become law. I am not
sure that will happen this year. But based upon the kind of things
happening and the needs out there and the fairness of this approach, I
believe it will become law. I am pleased to introduce it at this point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2098
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 ``Women's Business Training
Centers Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. WOMEN'S BUSINESS TRAINING CENTERS.
Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 29. (a) The Administration may provide financial
assistance to private organizations to conduct five-year
projects for the benefit of small business concerns owned and
controlled by women. The projects shall provide--
``(1) financial assistance, including training and
counseling in how to apply for and secure business credit and
investment capital, preparing and presenting financial
statements, and managing cashflow and other financial
operations of a business concern;
[[Page S11091]]
``(2) management assistance, including training and
counseling in how to plan, organize, staff, direct and
control each major activity and function of a small business
concern; and
``(3) marketing assistance, including training and
counseling in identifying and segmenting domestic and
international market opportunities, preparing and executing
marketing plans, developing pricing strategies, locating
contract opportunities, negotiating contracts, and utilizing
varying public relations and advertising techniques.
``(b)(1)) As a condition of receiving financial assistance
authorized by this section, the recipient organization shall
agree to obtain, after its application has been approved and
notice of award has been issued, cash contributions from non-
Federal sources as follows:
``(A) in the first and second years, 1 non-Federal dollar
for each 2 Federal dollars;
``(B) in the third year, 1 non-Federal dollar for each
Federal dollar; and
``(C) in the fourth and fifth years, 2 non-Federal dollars
for each Federal dollar.
``(2) Up to one-half of the non-Federal sector matching
assistance may be in the form of in-kind contributions which
are budget line items only, including but not limited to
office equipment and office space.
``(3) The financial assistance authorized pursuant to this
section may be made by grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement and may contain such provision, as necessary, to
provide for payments in lump sum or installments, and in
advance or by way of reimbursement. The Administration may
disburse up to 25 percent of each year's Federal share
awarded to a recipient organization after notice of the award
has been issued and before the non-Federal sector matching
funds are obtained.
``(4) If any recipient of assistance fails to obtain the
required non-Federal contribution during any project, it
shall not be eligible thereafter for advance disbursements
pursuant to paragraph (3) during the remainder of that
project, or for any other project for which it is or may be
funded. In addition, prior to approving assistance to such
organization for any other projects, the Administration
shall specifically determine whether the Administration
believes that the recipient will be able to obtain the
requisite non-Federal funding and enter a written finding
setting forth the reasons for making such determination.
``(c) Each applicant organization initially shall submit a
five-year plan on proposed fundraising and training
activities, and a recipient organization may receive
financial assistance under this program for a maximum of five
years per site. The Administration shall evaluate and rank
applicants in accordance with predetermined selection
criteria that shall be stated in terms of relative
importance. Such criteria and their relative importance shall
be made publicly available and stated in each solicitation
for applications made by the Administration. The criteria
shall include--
``(1) the experience of the applicant in conducting
programs or on-going efforts designed to impart or upgrade
the business skills of women business owners or potential
owners;
``(2) the present ability of the applicant to commence a
project within a minimum amount of time; and
``(3) the ability of the applicant to provide training and
services to a representative number of women who are both
socially and economically disadvantaged.
``(d) For the purposes of this section, the term small
business concern, either `start-up' or existing, owned and
controlled by women includes any small business concern--
``(1) which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more
women; and
``(2) the management and daily business operations are
controlled by one or more women.
``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $8,000,000
per year to carry out the projects authorized by this
section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administration may use such expedited acquisition methods as
it deems appropriate to achieve the purposes of this section,
except that it shall ensure that all eligible sources are
provided a reasonable opportunity to submit proposals.
``(f) The Administration shall prepare and transmit a
biennial report to the Committees on Small Business of the
Senate and House of Representatives on the effectiveness of
all projects conducted under the authority of this section.
Such report shall provide information concerning--
``(1) the number of individuals receiving assistance;
``(2) the number of start-up business concerns formed;
``(3) the gross receipts of assisted concerns;
``(4) increases or decreases in profits of assisted
concerns; and
``(5) the employment increases or decreases of assisted
concerns.
``(g) Office of Women's Business Ownership.--There is
hereby established within the Administration an Office of
Women's Business Ownership, which shall be responsible for
the administration of the Administration's programs for the
development of women's business enterprises, as such term is
defined in section 408 of the Women's Business Ownership Act
of 1988. The Office of Women's Business Ownership shall be
administered by an Assistant Administrator, who shall be
appointed by the Administrator.''.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM):
S. 2099. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide post-eligibility treatment of certain payments received under a
Department of Veterans Affairs pension or compensation program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Veterans Benefits Legislation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Graham,
I am introducing today legislation which, when enacted, will modify the
treatment of certain veterans benefits received by veterans who reside
in State veterans homes and whose care and treatment is paid for by the
Medicaid Program.
Veterans residing in State veterans homes, who are eligible for aid
and attendance [AA] and unusual medical expense [UME] benefits,
veterans benefits provided under Title 38 of the United States Code,
who are also eligible for Medicaid, are the only veterans in nursing
homes who receive, and who are able to keep, the entire AA and UME
benefit amounts. This can be as much as $1,000 per month.
Other veterans, who reside in other types of nursing homes are
receiving Medicaid, and who are also eligible for AA/UME can receive
only $90 per month from the VA.
Yet other veterans, who reside in State veterans homes but who are
not eligible for the AA/UME benefits must contribute all but $90 of
their income to the cost of their care.
So, even though veterans residing in State veterans homes who are
eligible for AA and UME benefits and who qualify for Medicaid have all
of their treatment and living expenses paid by the State Medicaid
Program, they nevertheless may keep as much as $1,000 per month of the
AA and UME benefits.
It might be useful for me to review how this state of affairs came to
be.
In 1990, legislation was enacted (PL 101-508, November 5, 1990) which
modified title 38, the veterans benefits title of the United States
Code, to stipulate that veterans with no dependents, on title XIX,
residing in nursing homes, and eligible for aid and attendance and
unusual medical expenses, could receive only a $90 per month personal
expense allowance from the VA, rather than the full UME and AA amounts.
State veterans homes were subsequently exempted from the definition
of nursing homes which had been contained in those earlier provisions
of PL 101-508 by legislation enacted in 1991--PL 102-40, May 7, 1991.
The result was that veterans on title XIX and residing in State
veterans homes continued to receive UME and AA. Until recently, the
State veterans homes followed a policy of requiring that all but $90
per month of these allowances be used to defray the cost of care in the
home.
Then, a series of Federal Court decisions held that neither UME nor
AA could be considered income. The court decisions appeared to focus on
the definition of income used in pre- and post-eligibility income
determinations for Medicaid. The court decisions essentially held that
UME and AA payments to veterans did not constitute income for the
purposes of post-eligibility income determinations. The reasoning was
that, since these monies typically were used by veterans to defray the
cost of certain services they were receiving, the payments constituted
a ``wash'' for purposes of income gain by the veterans.
However, the frame of reference for the courts' decisions was not a
nursing home environment in which a veteran receiving Medicaid benefits
might find himself or herself. In other words, the UME and AA payment
received by a veteran on Medicaid are provided to a veteran for
services for which the State is already paying through the Medicaid
program. The veteran is not paying for these services with their own
income. So, as a consequence of the court decisions, these payments to
the veteran in State Veterans Homes represent a net gain in income to
the veteran; they are not paid out by the veteran to defray the cost of
services the veteran is receiving.
As I mentioned earlier, VA does not pay AA or UME to veterans who are
also on title XIX and residing in non-State Veterans Home nursing
homes. Those veterans get only a $90 per month personal allowance.
And non-Medicaid eligible veterans who reside in State Veterans Homes
[[Page S11092]]
must pay for services with their own funds. If they get UME and AA
payments, the State Veterans Home will take all but $90 of those sums
to help defray the cost of the nursing home care.
Although the written record does not document this, I believe that
the purpose for exempting State Veterans Homes was to allow the Homes
to continue to collect all but $90 of the UME and AA paid to the
eligible veteran so as to enable State Veterans Homes to provide
service to more veterans than they otherwise would be able to provide.
In any case, it seems highly unlikely that the purpose of exempting
State Veterans Homes would have been to allow these veterans, and only
these among similarly situated veterans, to retain the entire UME and
A&A amounts.
The legislation I am introducing today modifies Section 1902 (r)(1)
of the Social Security Act to stipulate that, for purposes of the post-
eligibility treatment of income of individuals who are
institutionalized--and on Title 19--the payments received under a
Department of Veterans Affairs pension or compensation program,
including Aid and Attendance and Unusual Medical Expense payments, may
be taken into account.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 2100. A bill to provide for the extension of certain authority for
the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police; read the
first time.
Marshall of the Supreme Court Legislation
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that
is needed before the end of this legislative session. This simple bill
would extend the authority of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court Police to provide security to Justices, Court employees,
and official visitors beyond the Court's buildings and grounds. The
bill is straightforward and should not be controversial.
The authority for the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court Police to provide security beyond Court grounds appears at 40
U.S.C. 13n(a)(2), and was first established by Congress in 1982.
Congress has periodically extended that authority, which is now slated
to expire on December 29, 1996. See 40 U.S.C. 13n(c).
In the past 14 years, there has not been an interruption of the
Supreme Court Police's authority to provide such protection. Congress
originally provided that the authority would terminate in December
1985, and extensions have been provided ever since. In 1985, authority
was extended through December 26, 1986; in 1986, it was extended
through December 29, 1990; in 1990, it was extended through December
29, 1993; and in 1993, it was extended through December 29, 1996.
Chief Justice Rehnquist has written to me requesting that Congress
extend this authority permanently. The Chief Justice correctly pointed
out to me in his letter, ``As security concerns have not diminished, it
is essential that the off-grounds authority of the Supreme Court Police
be continued without interruption.'' The Supreme Court informs me that
threats of violence against the Justices and the Court have increased
since 1982, as has violence in the Washington metropolitan area.
Accordingly, I support a permanent extension of this authority to
provide for the safety of the Justices, court employees, and official
visitors.
Given the late date in the Congress, however, and the fact that we
must pass an extension before December 29, 1996, I am introducing
legislation that would provide for a 4-year extension, until December
29, 2000. I encourage Congress at some point to extend the authority on
a permanent basis, but I am suggesting a 4-year extension so that we
can get this done on short order.
I note for my colleagues that this provision is without significant
cost, but provides great benefits to those on the highest court in the
land and those working with them. According to the Supreme Court, from
1993 through 1995, there were only 25 requests for Supreme Court Police
protection beyond the Washington, DC metropolitan area, at a total cost
of $2,997. I am also informed that off-grounds protection of the
Justices within the DC area is provided without substantial additional
cost, since it is part of the officers' regularly scheduled duties
along with tasks on Court grounds.
I encourage my colleagues to support this much-needed extension so
that we can pass this bill before we adjourn.
By Mr. HATFIELD:
S. 2102. A bill to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United
States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of
Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865; read twice and ordered
placed on the calendar.
TREATY NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION
Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, this is probably the last act of
legislation that I will perform in my long tenure in the Senate. I want
to offer today, and I am very hopeful that even though this is in the
closing hours that this will rise above any other kind of
considerations because it offers an opportunity for all of us to
correct a historic wrong. One hundred and forty-one years ago, at the
request of the U.S. Government, the Tribes of Middle Oregon gathered
near The Dalles on the Columbia River to negotiate and sign a treaty
that would forever change the lives of their people. On June 25, 1855,
after many days of extended discussions and negotiations with Joel
Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Oregon Territory, the
treaty between the Tribes of Middle Oregon and the United States was
signed. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate March 8, 1859 and has served
since that time as the primary agreement between the Warm Springs
Tribes and the U.S. Government.
The 1855 treaty established a reservation--referred to as the Warm
Springs Reservation--some 50 miles to the south of the Columbia River,
on the Deschutes River. The 1855 treaty also provided that the members
of the signatory tribes settle on the newly created reservation and
cede the balance of their territory to the United States. In signing
the 1855 treaty, the tribes insisted upon retaining their right to
hunt, fish, graze, and gather roots and berries at their usual and
accustomed stations and on unclaimed lands outside the reservation.
These reserved treaty rights were essential for the Tribes' life and
culture.
While the tribes settled on the reservation soon after the treaty
signing, they maintained their accustomed practice of traveling
regularly to the Columbia River to harvest its magnificent runs of
salmon. The continued presence of Indian people fishing along the
Columbia, however, irritated the non-Indian settlers and prompted the
then-Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon, J.W. Perit
Huntington, to pursue efforts to keep the Tribes away from the
settlers.
To that end, Superintendent Huntington drew up a supplemental treaty
and, on November 15, 1865, convinced the tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation to sign it. This treaty, called the Treaty with the Middle
Oregon Tribes of November 15, 1865, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on
March 2, 1867. According to its terms, the treaty prohibits the Indians
from leaving the Warm Springs Reservation without the written
permission of the Government and relinquishes all of the off-
reservation rights so carefully negotiated by the tribes as part of the
1855 treaty.
The Indians of the Warm Springs Reservation have never complied with
the 1865 treaty and the United States has never tried to enforce it.
The historical record explains why this is so. The 1865 treaty was
obtained by fraud--plain and simple. The Indians, who did not speak,
read, or write English, were told by the Government agent that the
treaty only required them to notify the Government agent when they left
the reservation to fish on the Columbia. They were never told that the
treaty abrogated their cherished right to fish at Celilo Falls and
other traditional places outside the reservation. How do we know this?
Historical documents. Historical documents, including subsequent U.S.
Justice Department affidavits taken from Warm Springs Indians present
at both the 1855 and 1865 treaty signings, show that the Indian
signatories understood the agreement as providing a pass system
identifying Indians leaving the reservation to exercise off-reservation
rights. They understood this pass system as a means of distinguishing
the friendly treaty tribes
[[Page S11093]]
from the hostile Indians who were raiding in the area. It was never
understood or explained that the treaty relinquished all off-
reservation rights, or that Indians could not leave the reservation
without the Superintendent's written consent.
According to the affidavits, Huntington secured the signatures of
members of the tribes during a stay on the reservation that lasted less
than 24 hours. It is difficult to conceive that the tribes, in less
than 1 day, would agree to imprison themselves on their reservation and
relinquish the off-reservation rights that they exhaustively negotiated
in 1855, cutting themselves off from their principle source of food. As
the affidavit of Albert Kuck-up states:
I am sure that the Indians would have positively refused to
sign any paper, for Huntington or anyone else, that would
have taken from them their fishing rights or fishery. Fish is
to us what bread is to the white man.
Affidavits and other historic documents show that Huntington then
departed for Klamath, OR, never to return. He even took with him the
two wagons and teams he had promised to leave with the Indians of the
Warm Springs Reservation.
Almost immediately following the signing of the 1865 treaty, the
Indians from the Warm Springs Reservation continued to travel to the
Columbia River to fish from their historic fishing sites. Warm Springs
Agency agent John Smith wrote in his June 26, 1867, report to
Superintendent Huntington that ``as early as the 16th of May, 1866, the
Indians began to visit the salmon fisheries in large numbers.'' Reports
by Agent Smith in subsequent years further document continued fishing
on a substantial scale, and in a July 1, 1869, letter from Agent Smith
to Superintendent A.B. Meacham--who replaced Huntington on May 15,
1869--Smith noted ``the Indians said they did not understand the terms
of the [1865] treaty'', that ``they claim that it was not properly
interpreted to them'', and that ``they were led to believe the right of
taking fish, hunting game, etc., would still be given them because
salmon was such an essential part of their subsistence.'' That same
year, in a September 18, 1869 report regarding the Warm Springs
Reservation to Superintendent Meacham, U.S. Army Captain W.M. Mitchell
wrote,
I also have to report, for the consideration of the proper
authorities, that the Indians unanimously disclaim any
knowledge whatever of having sold their right to the fishery
at The Dalles of the Columbia, as stated in the amended
treaty of 1865, and express a desire to have a small
delegation of their head men visit their Great White Father
in Washington, and to him present their cause of complaint.
Official U.S. Government reports in subsequent years continue to note
the Warm Springs Reservation Indian's strong objection to the 1865
treaty, their continued and uninterrupted reliance on their fisheries
on the Columbia River, and the fraudulent nature of the 1865 treaty
signing. In the annual report, dated August 15, 1884, Warm Springs
Agent Alonzo Gesner finds:
on record what purports to be a supplementary treaty . . .
which is beyond a doubt a forgery on the part of the
Government in so far as it relates to the Indians ever
relinquishing their right to the fisheries on the Columbia
River; and as a matter of justice to the Indians, as well as
to the Government, the matter should be made right and
satisfactory to the Indians as soon as possible. . . . All
the Indians say emphatically that when the treaty was read to
them no mention was made of their giving up the right to
fish. All that was said was that they were to agree not to
leave the reservation without getting passes, . . . The fact
is they were wilfully and wickedly deceived.
In 1886, Warm Springs Agent Jason Wheeler reported to the
Commissioner of the Indian Affairs in Washington, DC, regarding the
1865 treaty that ``if ever a fraud was villainously perpetrated on any
set of people, red or white, this was, in my opinion, certainly one of
the most glaring.'' In 1887, Commissioner of Indian Affairs J.D.C.
Atkins, in his annual report to the Secretary of the Interior, cited a
recent War Department report by Gen. John Gibbons that:
called attention to the oft-repeated, and I may say very
generally credited, story of fraud in the treaty of 1865,
whereby the Warm Springs Indians were, it is claimed, cheated
out of their fishery by the Huntington treaty. Salmon,
he wrote:
is material and of grave importance to them. It is their
principal source of subsistence, and they never intended to
part with it, but were cheated and swindled out of it by a
cunning and unprincipled U.S. official. I would recommend
your early attention to the matter upon the convening of
Congress.
Mr. President, those are the words of representatives of the American
Government assessing this kind of a fraud perpetrated upon the Warm
Spring Indians in the 1870's and 1880's.
Mr. President, that report, along with the many others, along with
appeals made by the tribes, apparently fell on deaf ears. But while the
1865 treaty remains on the books, the United States has never enforced
it and the Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation have continued the
uninterrupted exercise of their 1855 off-reservation fishing, hunting,
gathering, and grazing rights. The 1865 treaty has been effectually
rendered null, disregarded by the tribes and the United States as a
fraud from virtually the time it was signed. It is doubtful that the
1865 treaty has any legal validity. Moreover, in the intervening years,
the Federal courts and the U.S. Congress have repeatedly recognized the
Warm Springs Tribes' rights secured under the 1855 Treaty.
Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today declares the
fraudulent 1865 treaty to be null and void. At the request of the Warm
Springs Tribes, my bill will at long last correct this historical
travesty. I wish to note that, other than formally nullifying what for
many years has been a nullity in practice, this legislation will not
alter the recognized 1855 rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation. This legislation is more of a housekeeping
measure--albeit housekeeping that will help the honor of the United
States and dignity of a long-wronged people.
It is my understanding that both the chairman and ranking member of
the Indian Affairs Committee are supportive of this proposal. The same
is true for the administration. On that basis, I hope this matter can
be addressed in an expeditious manner.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Heflin, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Mack):
S. 2103. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to protect
vessel hull designs against unauthorized duplication, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the boat protection act of 1996
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill,
entitled the Boat Protection Act of 1996. The bill will attempt to stop
an increasingly common problem facing America's marine manufacturers--
the unauthorized copying of boat hull designs. Such piracy threatens
the integrity of the U.S. marine manufacturing industry and the safety
of American boaters.
A boat manufacturer invests significant resources in creating a safe,
structurally sound, high performance boat hull design from which a line
of vessels can be manufactured. Standard practice calls for
manufacturing engineers to create a hull model, or plug, from which
they cast a mold. This mold is then used for mass production of boat
hulls. Unfortunately, those intent on pirating such a design can simply
use a finished boat hull to develop their own mold. This copied mold
can then be used to manufacture boat hulls identical in appearance to
the original line, and at a cost well below that incurred by the
original designer.
This so-called hull splashing is a significant problem for consumers,
manufacturers, and boat design firms. American consumers are defrauded
in the sense that they do not benefit from the many aspects of the
original hull design that contribute to its structural integrity and
safety, and they are not aware that the boat they have purchased has
been copied from an existing design. Moreover, if original
manufacturers are undersold by these copies, they may no longer be
willing to invest in new, innovative boat designs--boat designs that
could provide safer, less expensive, quality watercraft for consumers.
A number of States have enacted anti-boat-hull-copying, or plug mold,
statutes to address this problem of hull splashing. These States
include my State of Louisiana, as well as Alabama, California, Florida,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin. However, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bonito
Boats versus Thundercraft Boats,
[[Page S11094]]
Inc., invalidated these State statutes on the basis of Federal patent
laws preemption. The legislation I am introducing today would address
the concerns of hull splashing without attempting to amend the patent
are copyright laws.
Such nonintrusive initiatives are not new to Congress. In 1984,
Congress acted to protect the unique nature of design work when it
passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. This act was designed to
protect the mask works of semiconductor chips, which are essentially
the molds form which the chips are made, against unauthorized
duplication. I believe that the approach Congress took in that
legislation would also be sufficient to protect boat hull designs.
The Boat Protection Act of 1996 would work in concert with current
Federal law to protect American marine manufacturers from harmful and
unfair competition. I am introducing this bill today as a demonstration
of my commitment to the immediate resolution of this problem, and since
enactment of this legislation during the remaining days of the 104th
Congress is unlikely, I intend to pursue this issue as priority in the
105th Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support the Boat Protection Act of 1996 and
to join in this effort to protect the American public and the marine
manufacturing community from the assault on American ingenuity caused
by hull splashing.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes and Ms.
Mikulski):
S.J. Res. 62. A joint resolution granting the consent of the Congress
to amendments made by Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact Amendments
Act of 1996
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today
which would grant the consent of Congress to amendments made by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of
Columbia to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation
Compact. The compact amendments that are being proposed today govern
how the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), better
known as ``Metro'', conducts its daily operations as a transit
provider.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was established in
1967 by Congress when it consented to an Interstate Compact created by
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The authority was
established to plan, finance, construct and operate a comprehensive
public transit system for the Metropolitan Washington area. Today,
Metro operates 1,439 buses and 764 rail cars serving the entire
national capital region. The Metrorail System, sometimes called
``America's Subway'' has 89 miles and 74 stations currently in service.
Over the next several years, Metro will construct another 13.5 miles of
the rail system, with the planned 103-mile rail system being completed
in 2001.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact has been
amended five times since its inception. The amendments that are before
the Committee are a sixth set of amendments that will enable the
transit agency to perform its functions more efficiently and cost
effectively.
The proposed amendments primarily, and most importantly, modify the
Authority's procurement practices to conform with recently enacted
federal procurement reforms. Currently, the Authority must use a sealed
bid process in purchasing capital items. As you can imagine, the
Authority conducts extensive procurement in constructing the rail
system. The proposed amendments will enable Metro to engage in
competitive negotiations on capital contracts, as an alternative to the
sealed bid process. This amendment is particularly important as a means
for the Authority to reduce its costs.
The transit agency will be better able to define selection criteria
and eliminate costly items from bid proposals. If a prospective
contractor recommends a change in a bid specification, under the
proposed amendment that Authority will be able to take advantage of
this cost savings.
The proposed amendments will also allow the Authority to raise its
simplified purchasing ceiling from $10,000 to the federal level. The
Federal Transit Administration, part of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, has encouraged states and localities to raise the
dollar threshold for small purchases to $100,000 to come into
conformity with Federal procedures. The Authority and the jurisdictions
it serves strongly endorse this proposed amendment, allowing the
Authority to conduct its business in an efficient, business-like
manner, rather than being required to publish voluminous bid
specifications, even on small purchases. Under this revision, WMATA
will be able to publish a simplified bid specification and accept price
quotations, thus streamlining its procurement procedures. Given
inflation rates over the past several years, this amendment provides a
much better definition of ``small purchase'' for a government agency.
Finally, there are several administrative matters addressed in the
proposed compact amendments that are certainly of a housekeeping
nature. These amendments are largely codifications and clarifications
of current practices. They relate to, for example, the primacy of D.C.
Superior Court in cases involving WMATA, and the definition of a quorum
at WMATA Board meetings.
This joint resolution is of the utmost importance to the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. It goes straight to the heart of
how the Transit Authority does business.
____________________