[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11093-S11094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.

                          ____________________