[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.

                          ____________________