congressional_record: CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgS13
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgS13 | 1994-12-20 | 103 | 2 | URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS | SENATE | SENATE | FRONTMATTER | S | S | [{"name": "Bob Packwood", "role": "speaking"}] | 140 Cong. Rec. S | Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994) [Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)] [Senate] [Page S] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: December 20, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, one of the key achievements of the Uruguay agreement is the obligation it establishes in respect of protection of intellectual property rights. America is the preeminent producer and exporter of creative and inventive products--motion pictures, software, records, books, computers, airplanes, to name but a few--all of which are subject to copyright patent or trademark protection. By implementing the Uruguay round agreements, foreign countries will be obligated to provide American right holders protection under their national laws. These steps will improve our ability to sell our products overseas, and encourage further creative and inventive efforts in our country. It is our intention that this agreement establish a new floor for future initiatives to improve intellectual property protection, and not a ceiling on standards or an obstacle to further efforts to upgrade protection. In this implementing legislation, the U.S. Congress directs the administration to continue its trade policy initiatives aimed at improving export opportunities through bilateral negotiations and consultations. In 1984, and again in 1988, we amended our trade laws to require the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] to undertake deliberate and forceful bilateral trade initiatives to promote protection of American intellectual property rights. Over the past decade, progress on intellectual property issues has been achieved through complementary bilateral and multilateral initiatives. The World Trade Organization [WTO] agreements represent a major step forward on the multilateral prong of this approach. While the WTO result is a necessary element for attaining our goal of increased export opportunities, bilateral initiatives remain an indispensable element. Implementation of the Uruguay agreements leaves unchanged the intent of the Congress mandating continued effective bilateral negotiations. Thus, this implementing legislation states specifically that, notwithstanding that a foreign country may have implemented the specifically enumerated obligations contained in the TRIP's chapter of the WTO, or the obligations of any other bilateral or multilateral agreement, those acts by themselves do not mean that the country's laws meet the ``adequate and effective protection'' standard of the U.S. trade law. Bilateral initiatives are especially important for at least two reasons. First, they are to be used to ensure that countries that have been the subject of past bilateral negotiations move promptly to implement adequate and effective protection, and not take advantage of the overly long transition periods that are in almost all cases unnecessary. Bilateral efforts are necessary to ensure that the United States has the ability to address all impediments to trade such as measures which deny Americans the right to use, exploit, and derive full commercial benefits from their intellectual property. Experience demonstrates that bilateral negotiations can produce immediate results. Moreover, bilateral initiatives are well suited for resolving trade irritants unique to certain markets. Finally, bilateral negotiations have consistently resulted in high levels of protection and effective enforcement measures. For all these reasons, the intent of the Congress with respect to bilateral initiatives remains clear and unchanged: The USTR shall not diminish in any way bilateral efforts under Special 301, GSP, CBI, and ATPA programs to improve protection for U.S. holders of intellectual property. Implementation of the Uruguay round agreements shall not be construed or interpreted as a change in this mandate. Such bilateral efforts shall aim to supplement and strengthen the standards and obligations contained in the WTO's TRIP's agreement, secure their early implementation and to eliminate discrimination, unreasonable exceptions or preconditions to the protection, enforcement or commercial enjoyment of the full economic benefits arising from any use or exploitation of intellectual property rights. In particular, the United States, through bilateral negotiations, shall seek to secure fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory market access opportunities for U.S. persons holding intellectual property rights. ____________________ |