[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14328-H14336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1995

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2196) to amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
Act of 1980 with respect to inventions made under cooperative research 
and development agreements, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2196

       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 ``National Technology Transfer 
     and Advancement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Bringing technology and industrial innovation to the 
     marketplace is central to the economic, environmental, and 
     social well-being of the people of the United States.
       (2) The Federal Government can help United States business 
     to speed the development of new products and processes by 
     entering into cooperative research and development agreements 
     which make available the assistance of Federal laboratories 
     to the private sector, but the commercialization of 
     technology and industrial innovation in the United States 
     depends upon actions by business.
       (3) The commercialization of technology and industrial 
     innovation in the United States will be enhanced if 
     companies, in return for reasonable compensation to the 
     Federal Government, can more easily obtain exclusive licenses 
     to inventions which develop as a result of cooperative 
     research with scientists employed by Federal laboratories.

     SEC. 3. USE OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 11(e)(7) of the Stevenson-
     Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710(e)(7)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) A transfer shall be made by any Federal agency under 
     subparagraph (A), for any fiscal year, only if the amount so 
     transferred by that agency (as determined under such 
     subparagraph) would exceed $10,000.''.

     SEC. 4. TITLE TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARISING FROM 
                   COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       Subsection (b) of section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Enumerated Authority.--(1) Under an agreement entered 
     into pursuant to subsection (a)(1), the laboratory may grant, 
     or agree to grant in advance, to a collaborating party patent 
     licenses or assignments, or options thereto, in any invention 
     made in whole or in part by a laboratory employee under the 
     agreement, for reasonable compensation when appropriate. The 
     laboratory shall ensure, through such agreement, that the 
     collaborating party has the option to choose an exclusive 
     license for a field of use for any such invention under the 
     agreement or, if there is more than one collaborating party, 
     that the collaborating parties are offered the option to hold 
     licensing rights that collectively encompass the rights that 
     would be held under such an exclusive license by one party. 
     In consideration for the Government's contribution under the 
     agreement, grants under this paragraph shall be subject to 
     the following explicit conditions:
       ``(A) A nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up 
     license from the collaborating party to the laboratory to 
     practice the invention or have the invention practiced 
     throughout the world by or on behalf of the Government. In 
     the exercise of such license, the Government shall not 
     publicly disclose trade secrets or commercial or financial 
     information that is privileged or confidential within the 
     meaning of section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, 
     or which would be considered as such if it had been obtained 
     from a non-Federal party.
       ``(B) If a laboratory assigns title or grants an exclusive 
     license to such an invention, the Government shall retain the 
     right--
       ``(i) to require the collaborating party to grant to a 
     responsible applicant a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or 
     exclusive license to use the invention in the applicant's 
     licensed field of use, on terms that are reasonable under the 
     circumstances; or
       ``(ii) if the collaborating party fails to grant such a 
     license, to grant the license itself.
       ``(C) The Government may exercise its right retained under 
     subparagraph (B) only if the Government finds that--
       ``(i) the action is necessary to meet health or safety 
     needs that are not reasonably satisfied by the collaborating 
     party;
       ``(ii) the action is necessary to meet requirements for 
     public use specified by Federal regulations, and such 
     requirements are not reasonably satisfied by the 
     collaborating party; or
       ``(iii) the collaborating party has failed to comply with 
     an agreement containing provisions described in subsection 
     (c)(4)(B).
       ``(2) Under agreements entered into pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1), the laboratory shall ensure that a collaborating 
     party may retain title to any invention made solely by its 
     employee in exchange for normally granting the Government a 
     nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license 
     to practice the invention or have the invention practiced 
     throughout the world by or on behalf of the Government for 
     research or other Government purposes.
       ``(3) Under an agreement entered into pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1), a laboratory may--
       ``(A) accept, retain, and use funds, personnel, services, 
     and property from a collaborating party and provide 
     personnel, services, and property to a collaborating party;
       ``(B) use funds received from a collaborating party in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A) to hire personnel to carry 
     out the agreement who will not be subject to full-time-
     equivalent restrictions of the agency;
       ``(C) to the extent consistent with any applicable agency 
     requirements or standards of conduct, permit an employee or 
     former employee of the laboratory to participate in an effort 
     to commercialize an invention made by the employee or former 
     employee while in 

[[Page H14329]]
     the employment or service of the Government; and
       ``(D) waive, subject to reservation by the Government of a 
     nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the 
     invention or have the invention practiced throughout the 
     world by or on behalf of the Government, in advance, in whole 
     or in part, any right of ownership which the Federal 
     Government may have to any subject invention made under the 
     agreement by a collaborating party or employee of a 
     collaborating party.
       ``(4) A collaborating party in an exclusive license in any 
     invention made under an agreement entered into pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1) shall have the right of enforcement under 
     chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code.
       ``(5) A Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory 
     that enters into a cooperative research and development 
     agreement pursuant to subsection (a)(1) may use or obligate 
     royalties or other income accruing to the laboratory under 
     such agreement with respect to any invention only--
       ``(A) for payments to inventors;
       ``(B) for purposes described in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), 
     and (iv) of section 14(a)(1)(B); and
       ``(C) for scientific research and development consistent 
     with the research and development missions and objectives of 
     the laboratory.''.

     SEC. 5. DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME FROM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
                   RECEIVED BY FEDERAL LABORATORIES.

       Section 14 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710c) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a)(1) to read as follows:

     ``(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4), any 
     royalties or other payments received by a Federal agency from 
     the licensing and assignment of inventions under agreements 
     entered into by Federal laboratories under section 12, and 
     from the licensing of inventions of Federal laboratories 
     under section 207 of title 35, United States Code, or under 
     any other provision of law, shall be retained by the 
     laboratory which produced the invention and shall be disposed 
     of as follows:
       ``(A)(i) The head of the agency or laboratory, or such 
     individual's designee, shall pay each year the first $2,000, 
     and thereafter at least 15 percent, of the royalties or other 
     payments to the inventor or coinventors.
       ``(ii) An agency or laboratory may provide appropriate 
     incentives, from royalties, or other payments, to laboratory 
     employees who are not an inventor of such inventions but who 
     substantially increased the technical value of such 
     inventions.
       ``(iii) The agency or laboratory shall retain the royalties 
     and other payments received from an invention until the 
     agency or laboratory makes payments to employees of a 
     laboratory under clause (i) or (ii).
       ``(B) The balance of the royalties or other payments shall 
     be transferred by the agency to its laboratories, with the 
     majority share of the royalties or other payments from any 
     invention going to the laboratory where the invention 
     occurred. The royalties or other payments so transferred to 
     any laboratory may be used or obligated by that laboratory 
     during the fiscal year in which they are received or during 
     the succeeding fiscal year--
       ``(i) to reward scientific, engineering, and technical 
     employees of the laboratory, including developers of 
     sensitive or classified technology, regardless of whether the 
     technology has commercial applications;
       ``(ii) to further scientific exchange among the 
     laboratories of the agency;
       ``(iii) for education and training of employees consistent 
     with the research and development missions and objectives of 
     the agency or laboratory, and for other activities that 
     increase the potential for transfer of the technology of the 
     laboratories of the agency;
       ``(iv) for payment of expenses incidental to the 
     administration and licensing of intellectual property by the 
     agency or laboratory with respect to inventions made at that 
     laboratory, including the fees or other costs for the 
     services of other agencies, persons, or organizations for 
     intellectual property management and licensing services; or
       ``(v) for scientific research and development consistent 
     with the research and development missions and objectives of 
     the laboratory.
       ``(C) All royalties or other payments retained by the 
     agency or laboratory after payments have been made pursuant 
     to subparagraphs (A) and (B) that is unobligated and 
     unexpended at the end of the second fiscal year succeeding 
     the fiscal year in which the royalties and other payments 
     were received shall be paid into the Treasury.'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``or other payments'' after ``royalties''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``for the purposes described in clauses (i) 
     through (iv) of paragraph (1)(B) during that fiscal year or 
     the succeeding fiscal year'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``under paragraph (1)(B)'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``$100,000'' both 
     places it appears and inserting ``$150,000'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (A) by striking ``income'' each place it appears and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``payments'';
       (B) by striking ``the payment of royalties to inventors'' 
     in the first sentence thereof and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``payments to inventors'';
       (C) by striking ``clause (i) of paragraph (1)(B)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``clause (iv) of paragraph 
     (1)(B)'';
       (D) by striking ``payment of the royalties,'' in the second 
     sentence thereof and inserting in lieu thereof ``offsetting 
     the payments to inventors,''; and
       (E) by striking ``clauses (i) through (iv) of''; and
       (5) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (b) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) by a contractor, grantee, or participant, or an 
     employee of a contractor, grantee, or participant, in an 
     agreement or other arrangement with the agency, or''.

     SEC. 6. EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 15(a) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710d(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the right of ownership to an invention 
     under this Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``ownership of 
     or the right of ownership to an invention made by a Federal 
     employee''; and
       (2) by inserting ``obtain or'' after ``the Government, 
     to''.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO BAYH-DOLE ACT.

       Section 210(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``, as amended by the Federal Technology Transfer 
     Act of 1986,''.

     SEC. 8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 10(a)--
       (A) by striking ``nine'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``15''; and
       (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``10'';
       (2) in section 15--
       (A) by striking ``Pay Act of 1945; and'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``Pay Act of 1945;''; and
       (B) by inserting ``; and (h) the provision of 
     transportation services for employees of the Institute 
     between the facilities of the Institute and nearby public 
     transportation, notwithstanding section 1344 of title 31, 
     United States Code'' after ``interests of the Government''; 
     and
       (3) in section 19--
       (A) by inserting ``, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations,'' after ``post-doctoral fellowship program''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``nor more than forty'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``nor more than 60''.

     SEC. 9. RESEARCH EQUIPMENT.

       Section 11(i) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710(i)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``loan, lease,'' after ``department, 
     may''; and
       (2) by inserting ``Actions taken under this subsection 
     shall not be subject to Federal requirements on the disposal 
     of property.'' after ``education and research activities.''.

     SEC. 10. PERSONNEL.

       The personnel management demonstration project established 
     under section 10 of the National Bureau of Standards 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (15 U.S.C. 275 note) 
     is extended indefinitely.

     SEC. 11. FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 2 Amendments.--Section 2 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5401) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a)(4), and redesignating 
     paragraphs (5) through (9) as paragraphs (4) through (8), 
     respectively;
       (2) in subsection (a)(7), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by striking ``by lot number''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``used in critical 
     applications'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``in commerce''.
       (b) Section 3 Amendments.--Section 3 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5402) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``having a minimum 
     tensile strength of 150,000 pounds per square inch'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``consensus'' after ``or 
     any other'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``or'' after ``standard or 
     specification,'' in subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (C) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (D) by inserting ``or produced in accordance with ASTM F 
     432'' after ``307 Grade A'';
       (4) in paragraph (6) by striking ``other person'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``government agency'';
       (5) in paragraph (8) by striking ``Standard'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``Standards'';
       (6) by striking paragraph (11) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (12) through (15) as paragraphs (11) through (14), 
     respectively;
       (7) in paragraph (13), as so redesignated by paragraph (6) 
     of this subsection, by striking ``, a government agency'' and 
     all that follows through ``markings of any fastener'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``or a government agency''; and
       (8) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated by paragraph (6) 
     of this subsection, by inserting ``for the purpose of 
     achieving a uniform hardness'' after ``quenching and 
     tempering''.
       (c) Section 4 Repeal.--Section 4 of the Fastener Quality 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 5403) is repealed.
       (d) Section 5 Amendments.--Section 5 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5404) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B) and (2)(A)(i) by striking 
     ``subsections (b) and (c)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``subsections (b), (c), and (d)'';
     
[[Page H14330]]

       (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``or, where 
     applicable'' and all that follows through ``section 
     7(c)(1)'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``, such as the 
     chemical, dimensional, physical, mechanical, and any other'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(4) by inserting ``except as provided 
     in subsection (d),'' before ``state whether''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Alternative Procedure for Chemical Characteristics.--
     Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), 
     a manufacturer shall be deemed to have demonstrated, for 
     purposes of subsection (a)(1), that the chemical 
     characteristics of a lot conform to the standards and 
     specifications to which the manufacturer represents such lot 
     has been manufactured if the following requirements are met:
       ``(1) The coil or heat number of metal from which such lot 
     was fabricated has been inspected and tested with respect to 
     its chemical characteristics by a laboratory accredited in 
     accordance with the procedures and conditions specified by 
     the Secretary under section 6.
       ``(2) Such laboratory has provided to the manufacturer, 
     either directly or through the metal manufacturer, a written 
     inspection and testing report, which shall be in a form 
     prescribed by the Secretary by regulation, listing the 
     chemical characteristics of such coil or heat number.
       ``(3) The report described in paragraph (2) indicates that 
     the chemical characteristics of such coil or heat number 
     conform to those required by the standards and specifications 
     to which the manufacturer represents such lot has been 
     manufactured.
       ``(4) The manufacturer demonstrates that such lot has been 
     fabricated from the coil or heat number of metal to which the 
     report described in paragraphs (2) and (3) relates.

     In prescribing the form of report required by subsection (c), 
     the Secretary shall provide for an alternative to the 
     statement required by subsection (c)(4), insofar as such 
     statement pertains to chemical characteristics, for cases in 
     which a manufacturer elects to use the procedure permitted by 
     this subsection.''.
       (e) Section 6 Amendment.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5405(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The''.
       (f) Section 7 Amendments.--Section 7 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5406) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Domestically Produced Fasteners.--It shall be 
     unlawful for a manufacturer to sell any shipment of fasteners 
     covered by this Act which are manufactured in the United 
     States unless the fasteners--
       ``(1) have been manufactured according to the requirements 
     of the applicable standards and specifications and have been 
     inspected and tested by a laboratory accredited in accordance 
     with the procedures and conditions specified by the Secretary 
     under section 6; and
       ``(2) an original laboratory testing report described in 
     section 5(c) and a manufacturer's certificate of conformance 
     are on file with the manufacturer, or under such custody as 
     may be prescribed by the Secretary, and available for 
     inspection.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2) by inserting ``to the same'' after 
     ``in the same manner and'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``certificate'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``test report''; and
       (4) by striking subsections (e), (f), and (g) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(e) Commingling.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     manufacturer, importer, or private label distributor to 
     commingle like fasteners from different lots in the same 
     container, except that such manufacturer, importer, or 
     private label distributor may commingle like fasteners of the 
     same type, grade, and dimension from not more than two tested 
     and certified lots in the same container during repackaging 
     and plating operations. Any container which contains 
     fasteners from two lots shall be conspicuously marked with 
     the lot identification numbers of both lots.
       ``(f) Subsequent Purchaser.--If a person who purchases 
     fasteners for any purpose so requests either prior to the 
     sale or at the time of sale, the seller shall conspicuously 
     mark the container of the fasteners with the lot number from 
     which such fasteners were taken.''.
       (g) Section 9 Amendment.--Section 9 of the Fastener Quality 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 5408) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may designate officers or 
     employees of the Department of Commerce to conduct 
     investigations pursuant to this Act. In conducting such 
     investigations, those officers or employees may, to the 
     extent necessary or appropriate to the enforcement of this 
     Act, exercise such authorities as are conferred upon them by 
     other laws of the United States, subject to policies and 
     procedures approved by the Attorney General.''.
       (h) Section 10 Amendments.--Section 10 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5409) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``10 years'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``5 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``any subsequent'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the subsequent''.
       (i) Section 13 Amendment.--Section 13 of the Fastener 
     Quality Act (15 U.S.C. 5412) is amended by striking ``within 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act''.
       (j) Section 14 Repeal.--Section 14 of the Fastener Quality 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 5413) is repealed.

     SEC. 12. STANDARDS CONFORMITY.

       (a) Use of Standards.--Section 2(b) of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, including comparing 
     standards'' and all that follows through ``Federal 
     Government'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (12), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) to compare standards used in scientific 
     investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, 
     industry, and educational institutions with the standards 
     adopted or recognized by the Federal Government and to 
     coordinate the use by Federal agencies of private sector 
     standards, emphasizing where possible the use of standards 
     developed by private, consensus organizations;''.
       (b) Conformity Assessment Activities.--Section 2(b) of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     272(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11), as so 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section;
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12), as 
     so redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section, and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private 
     sector standards conformity assessment activities, with the 
     goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in 
     the development and promulgation of conformity assessment 
     requirements and measures.''.
       (c) Transmittal of Plan to Congress.--The National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology shall, by January 1, 
     1996, transmit to the Congress a plan for implementing the 
     amendments made by this section.
       (d) Utilization of Consensus Standards by Federal Agencies; 
     Reports.--(1) To the extent practicable, all Federal agencies 
     and departments shall use, for procurement and regulatory 
     applications, standards that are developed or adopted by 
     voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies.
       (2) Federal agencies and departments shall consult with 
     voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies, and 
     shall participate with such bodies in the development of 
     standards, as appropriate in carrying out paragraph (1).
       (3) If a Federal agency or department elects to develop, 
     for procurement or regulatory applications, standards that 
     are not developed or adopted by voluntary, private sector, 
     consensus standards bodies, the head of such agency or 
     department shall transmit to the Office of Management and 
     Budget, via the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, an explanation of the reasons for developing such 
     standards. The Office of Management and Budget, with the 
     assistance of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, shall annually transmit to the Congress 
     explanations concerning exceptions made under this 
     subsection.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Malcolm Baldrige 
     National Quality Award program offers substantial benefits to 
     United States industry, and that all funds appropriated for 
     such program should be spent in support of the goals of the 
     program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, the Science Committee has a long history 
of encouraging, in a strong bipartisan manner, the transfer of 
technology and collaboration between our Federal laboratories and 
industry.
  This afternoon, as we consider H.R. 2196, the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, we are following in that 
tradition.
  I am very pleased to have my distinguished colleagues, Science 
Committee Chairman Walker, Science committee ranking Member Congressman 
Brown, and my Technology Subcommittee ranking member, Congressman 
Tanner, as original cosponsors of H.R. 2196. Additionally, S. 1164, the 
Senate companion bill to H.R. 2196, has been introduced by Senator 
Rockefeller and has passed the Senate Commerce Committee.
  I am also very pleased with the strong outside support H.R. 2196 has 
received. The administration, and a series of Federal agency officials, 
Federal 

[[Page H14331]]
laboratory directors, as well as a broad spectrum of industry 
association representatives and private sector officers have all 
endorsed passage of the Act as an effective method to enhance our 
Nation's international competitiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, successful technology transfer results in the creation 
of innovative products or processes becoming available to meet or 
induce market demand. Congress has long tried to encourage technology 
transfer to the private sector created in our Federal laboratories.

  This is eminently logical since Federal laboratories are considered 
one of our Nation's greatest assets; yet, they are also a largely 
untapped resource of technical expertise.
  The United States has over 700 Federal laboratories, employing one of 
six scientists in the Nation and occupying one-fifth of the country's 
lab and equipment capabilities.
  It is, therefore, important to our future economic well-being to make 
the ideas and resources of our Federal laboratory scientists available 
to United States companies for commercialization opportunities.
  Beginning with the landmark Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
Act of 1980, through the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, among 
others, Congress has promoted technology transfer efforts, especially 
through a cooperative research and development agreement [CRADA].
  The CRADA mechanism allows a laboratory and an industrial company to 
negotiate patent rights and royalties before they conduct joint 
research, giving the company patent protection for any inventions and 
products that result from the collaboration. This patent protection 
provides an incentive for the companies to invest in turning laboratory 
ideas into commercial products.
  A CRADA provides a Federal laboratory with valuable insights into the 
needs and priorities of industry, and with the expertise available only 
in industry, that enhances a laboratory's ability to accomplish its 
mission.
  Since the inception in 1986 of the CRADA legislation, over 2,000 have 
been signed, resulting in the transfer of technology, knowledge, and 
expertise back and forth between our Federal laboratories and the 
private sector.
  Despite the success of the CRADA legislation, there are, however, 
existing impediments to private companies entering into a CRADA.
  The law was originally designed to provide a great deal of 
flexibility in the negotiation of intellectual property rights to both 
the private sector partner and the Federal laboratory.
  The law, however, provides little guidance to either party on the 
adequacy of those rights a private sector partner should receive in a 
CRADA. Agencies are given broad discretion in the determination of 
intellectual property rights under CRADA legislation.
  This has often resulted in laborious negotiations of patent rights 
for certain laboratories and their partners each time they discuss a 
new CRADA.
  With options ranging from assigning the company full patent title to 
providing the company with only a nonexclusive license for a narrow 
field of use, both sides must undergo this negotiation on the range of 
intellectual property rights for each CRADA.
  This uncertainty of intellectual property rights, coupled with the 
time and effort required in negotiation, may now be hindering 
collaboration by the private sector with Federal laboratories.
  This, in essence, has become a barrier to technology transfer. 
Companies are reluctant to enter into a CRADA, or equally important, to 
commit substantial investments to commercialize CRADA inventions, 
unless they have some assurance they will control important 
intellectual property rights.
  The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
addresses these concerns, and others, through the following objectives:
  First, by promoting prompt deployment by United States industry of 
discoveries created in a collaborative agreement with Federal 
laboratories by guaranteeing the industry partner sufficient 
intellectual property rights to the invention;
  Second, by providing important incentives and rewards to Federal 
laboratory personnel who create new inventions;
  Third, by providing several clarifying and strengthening amendments 
to current technology transfer laws; and
  Fourth, by making legislative changes affecting the Fastener Quality 
Act, the Federal use of standards, and the management and 
administration of scientific research and standards measurement at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST].
  Specifically, H.R. 2196 seeks to enhance the possibility of 
commercialization of technology and industrial innovation in the United 
States by providing assurances that sufficient rights to intellectual 
property will be granted to the private sector partner with a Federal 
laboratory.
  H.R. 2196 guarantees to the private sector partner the option, at 
minimum, of selecting an exclusive license in a field of use for a new 
invention created in a CRADA.
  The company would then have the right to use the new invention in 
exchange for reasonable compensation to the laboratory.
  The important factor is that industry selects which option makes the 
most sense under the CRADA. A company will now have the knowledge that 
they are assured of having no less than an exclusive license in an 
application area of its choosing.
  These statutory guidelines give companies real assurance that they 
will receive important intellectual property out of any CRADA they 
fund.
  Knowing they have an exclusive claim to the invention will, 
consequently, give a company both an extra incentive to enter into a 
CRADA and the knowledge that they can safely invest further in the 
commercialization of that invention.
  In addition, H.R. 2196 addresses concerns about government rights to 
an invention created in a CRADA. It provides that the Federal 
Government will retain minimum statutory rights to use the technology 
for its own purposes.
  H.R. 2196 provides limited government ``march-in-rights'' if there is 
a public necessity that requires compulsory licensing of the 
technology.
  It also provides important incentives in royalty sharing to Federal 
laboratory personnel who create new technologies by enhancing the 
financial incentives and rewards given to Federal laboratory scientists 
for technology that results in marketable products.

  These new incentives respond to criticism made before the Science 
Committee that agencies are not sufficiently rewarding laboratory 
personnel for their inventions.
  It is important to note that these incentives are paid from the 
income the laboratories received for commercialized technology, not 
from tax dollars.
  In addition, the Act provides a significant new incentive by allowing 
the laboratory to use royalties for related scientific research and 
development, consistent with the objectives and mission of the 
laboratory.
  In this era of limited Federal fiscal resources, as we seek to 
balance our budget, these important incentives and administrative 
provisions can be very important to help a laboratory effectively meet 
its mission.
  H.R. 2196 will help facilitate and speed technology cooperation 
between industry and our Federal laboratories, thus benefiting our 
economy and our citizens by making a CRADA more attractive to both 
American industry and Federal laboratories.
  The Act is important because it comes at a time when both Federal 
laboratories and industry need to work closer together for their mutual 
benefit and our national competitiveness.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill to enhance 
our Nation's international competitiveness. With today's House passage, 
H.R. 2196 can be brought to the Senate for its expedited consideration, 
and then sent to the President for his signature into law.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. I want to commend 
Chairwoman Morella for her continued and 

[[Page H14332]]
strong support of technology transfer from the Federal laboratories. We 
have worked on this bill in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation and it 
addresses gaps in our current technology transfer laws.
  This is a short bill, the sections dealing with technology transfer 
are only nine pages, yet it impacts an area of considerable Federal 
investment. This bill amends and improves existing technology transfer 
laws affecting more than 700 Federal laboratories. H.R. 2196 enhances 
the ability of our national laboratories to work with industry to 
develop and commercialize new technologies.
  Cooperative research and development agreements [CRADA's] represent a 
sizeable investment by the Federal Government and the private sector. 
Federal laboratories will have more than 6,000 active cooperative 
research and development agreements with industry and universities in 
1995, representing more than $5 billion in Federal investment and 
matched by private sector partners.
  I have witnessed firsthand the importance of technology transfer in 
maintaining the vitality of our Federal labs and to the economy. Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee accounts for almost 20 percent 
of all CRADA's signed by DOE laboratories and contractors. Since 1990, 
Oak Ridge National Lab has: Invested more than $320 million in 
cooperative research with industry; signed more than 280 CRADA's--39 
percent of them with small businesses; issued more than 152 technology 
licenses and has a patent portfolio of over 400 licensable 
technologies; and, applied for almost 100 patents per year.
  These activities have resulted in more than $80 million in sales and 
have generated $3.5 million in royalty payments to Oak Ridge. More 
importantly, technology transfer activities at Oak Ridge have fostered 
more than 55 new business and 3,000 private-sector jobs in the past 10 
years--17 new businesses have been created as the result of CRADAs in 
the past 2 years alone.
  Additionally, the bill extends the time that Federal labs have to 
reinvest royalty payments for scientific research and development at 
the labs. At a time when we are cutting the labs' budgets, we should 
allow them to benefit from the fruits of their labors.
  The Federal labs are a national resource which should benefit all 
Americans. The labs have worked for the well-being of Americans since 
their earliest days and not only in terms of national security. It was 
in the early 1960's that a team of scientists and engineers from the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory working with industry developed a machine 
and a process that have since been credited with saving millions of 
lives a year worldwide. In less than 1 year this private/public 
partnership developed a process and machine for isolating and purifying 
viruses to create vaccines--most notably to treat influenza.
  The vaccines produced by this new process eliminated the sometimes 
severe side effects common with standard vaccines. Severe allergic 
reaction prevented the administration of the standard vaccine to the 
young and the old--the very people who needed it. The unique expertise 
of Oak Ridge scientists and engineers working with their colleagues in 
industry made this possible.
  We should strengthen and build upon the 30-year tradition of 
cooperation between the national labs and industry. H.R. 21961 makes it 
easier for the Government and industry to work together--each 
contributing their respective strengths. We have invested billions of 
dollars in our research infrastructure and we shouldn't just rely on 
luck and hope that this investment will be fully utilized.
  The bill provides needed incentives to promote public-private 
technology partnerships. H.R. 2196 deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] for his comments and for his support. He does 
exemplify, as does the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], 
bipartisan cooperation on this bill and in other legislation that 
enhances our competitiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht], a very distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and the chairman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2196 the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. This legislation will 
encourage the transfer of basic science and research information from 
the Federal laboratories to the private sector. This bill also makes 
important and necessary changes to the Fastener Quality Act.
  These changes are of great importance to my constituents who are 
employed in the fastener industry. One of the fastest growing and best-
run companies in the United States is based in Winona, Minnesota. The 
Fasten all Company is one of the dominant forces in the fastener 
industry.
  Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, they would probably benefit, or probably 
do benefit, from some of the rules and regulations currently enacted, 
but they have told me that whether they benefit or not, it actually, in 
the long run, is bad for business and industry.
  In 1990, the 101st Congress enacted the Fastener Quality act to 
answer concerns that counterfeit and substandard fasteners posed a 
threat to our national defense and our public safety. In most cases, 
counterfeit and substandard fasteners are two separate problems.
  While well-meaning in nature, the original Fastener Quality Act 
required that fasteners be tested, inspected, and certified by 
accredited laboratories before being distributed to the market. 
Fastener manufacturers were required to register their fastener 
headmarkings with the Patent and Trademark Office and keep 
certification of performance and a copy of the test report on file. 
These requirements are typical of unnecessary regulations which 
previous Congresses have dictated.
  Today, we would be acting on the recommendations which have been made 
by the Fastener Advisory Committee, amending the Fastener Quality Act. 
The Fastener Advisory Committee, created by Congress, determined that 
the Fastener Quality Act will have an unintended detrimental impact on 
business. The Fastener Advisory committee reported that without these 
recommended changes, the cumulative burden of cost on the fastener 
industry could be close to $1 billion for absolute compliance to the 
Fastener Quality Act.
  The Committee has adopted recommendations in this legislation for 
amending the Fastener Quality Act that were submitted in March of 1992, 
and then again in February of 1995, to the Congress by the Fastener 
Advisory Committee.

                              {time}  1815

  Such recommendations were the result of nine public meetings by the 
Fastener Advisory Committee involving more than 2,000 pages of 
transcript documenting the need for the amendments. Subsequent to the 
recommendations to Congress, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology [NIST] published proposed implementing regulations for 
public comment in August 1992. More than 300 letters were received from 
the public. Over 70 percent of the letters supported the 
recommendations of the Fastener Advisory Committee for amending the 
act.
  I urge all members to support this important legislation.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct regarding the 
great extent we have undertaken to work out these amendments with the 
fastener industry.
  We listened to the Fastener Advisory Committee, its Fastener Public 
Law Task Force, and other representatives from the manufacturing, 
importing, and distribution sectors of the United States fastener 
industry in crafting these amendments to the Fastener Quality Act.
  The task force represents 85 percent of all United States companies 
and their suppliers involved in the manufacture, distribution, and 
importation of fasteners and over 100,000 employees in all 50 States.
  The section focuses mainly on mill heat certification, mixing of 
like-certified fasteners, and sale of fasteners with minor 
nonconformances. The act 

[[Page H14333]]
will maintain safety, reduce the unnecessary burdens on industry, and 
ensure proper enforcement of the Fastener Quality Act.

  In addition to the fastener provisions in the bill, I believe it is 
important to note the other major provisions in the act. These include 
some very important administrative and management changes to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which include 
making permanent the NIST Personnel Demonstration Project.
  This project has helped NIST recruit and retain the best and the 
brightest scientists to meet its scientific research and measurement 
standards mission.
  Also, included in the act are provisions affecting the Federal 
involvement in the use of standards and its development. Standards play 
a crucial role in all facets of daily life and in the ability of the 
Nation to compete in the global marketplace.
  The United States, unlike the federalized standards system of most 
other countries, relies heavily on a decentralized, private sector-
based, voluntary consensus standards system.
  This unique consensus-based voluntary system has served us well for 
over a century and has contributed significantly to United States 
competitiveness, health, public welfare, and safety.
  Playing an important role in maintaining a future competitive edge is 
the ability to develop standards which match the speed of the rapidly 
changing technology of the marketplace.
  The key challenge is to update domestic standards activities, in 
light of increased internationalization of commerce, and to reduce 
duplication and waste by effectively integrating the Federal Government 
and private sector resources in the voluntary consensus standards 
system, while protecting its industry-driven nature and the public 
good.
  Better coordination of Federal standards activities is clearly 
crucial to this effort. These issues were raised by the National 
Research Council (NRC) in its March 1995, report entitled, ``Standards, 
Conformity Assessment, and Trade in the 21st Century.''
  We have adopted some of the recommendations in the NRC report 
clarifying NIST's lead role in the implementation of a government-wide 
policy of phasing out the use of federally-developed standards, 
wherever possible, in favor of standards developed by private sector, 
consensus standards organizations. We also adopted the recommendation 
to codify the present requirements of OMB Circular A-119, which 
requires agencies, through OMB, to report annually to Congress on the 
reasons for deviating from voluntary consensus standards, when the head 
of the agency deems that prospective consensus standards are not 
appropriate to the agency needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding so that I could put 
into the Record and explain the benefits of the statements that he made 
with regard to standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for many reasons. It 
will create more jobs, it will provide incentives for important 
scientific inventions, and it is going to make it easier to give or 
loan equipment to our schools, Federal equipment.
  But it is also a bill that is important in another very important 
technological way, and that is for stimulating commercialization of the 
research being done in our national laboratories. I represent one of 
them, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and it is going to benefit 
enormously from this legislation.
  What this bill also does, it extends the Federal charter and set-
aside for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. 
This charter was created through the hard work of Dr. Eugene Stark at 
the Los Alamos Laboratory.
  The set-aside has provided very stable annual funding to the 
consortium which has permitted technology transfer officers of the 
various laboratories to work together. The Federal Laboratory 
Consortium members are linked together electronically, which enables 
them to help businesses find out what other Federal laboratories have 
expertise in specific areas.
  So my colleagues know, what we are trying to do is get the labs more 
into economic competitiveness, into commercialization, so that their 
science can be used commercially for the best economic interests of the 
country. For example, if an agriculturally oriented business in New 
Mexico or Tennessee went to the technology transfer officers at Los 
Alamos with a problem, Los Alamos would be able to find out if any of 
the laboratories in the Departments of Agriculture or Interior could 
have expertise that is useful to that company.
  The bill also gives far better incentives to Federal inventors, who 
are an imperative necessity to our national security. Currently, 
inventors receive only 15 percent of the royalty stream from their 
inventions, meaning that most inventions have produced less than $2,000 
per year. By changing the calculation so that agencies pay inventors 
the first $2,000 of the royalties receive by the agency for the 
inventions, as well as 15 percent of the royalties above that amount, 
the bill provides incentives that these employees can use and give them 
more equitable compensation.
  Finally, this bill clarifies that a Federal laboratory, agency, or 
department may give, loan, or lease excess scientific equipment to 
public and private schools and nonprofit organizations without regard 
to Federal property disposal laws.
  Therefore, if for instance Los Alamos or Sandia or any of our 
national labs wanted to donate unused equipment to a university, it 
would not have to go through the bureaucratic redtape that is now 
required. Some labs would rather store their unwanted equipment rather 
than going through the hassle of GSA disposal.
  This is a good bill, especially a good bill to all of us who have 
Federal laboratories in our districts, and that is about 14 States 
around the country and approximately 130 Members of Congress have lab 
components in their districts. It advocates technology transfer, it 
creates incentives for Federal inventors, and it makes it easier to 
donate equipment to needy schools.
  I want to commend the author of the bill, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], I want to commend the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], and I see the fingerprints of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], the former Science chairman, all over this 
bill.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated 
December 12, 1995 to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the 
chairman of the Committee on Science, from the administration, Ron 
Brown, indicating the administration's support of the Fastener Quality 
Act as it is contained in H.R. 2196.

                                    The Secretary of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 1995.
     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     Chairman, Committee on Science,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter seeking 
     the Administration's position on the amendments to Public Law 
     No. 101-592, the Fastener Quality Act, contained in H.R. 
     2196, The National Technology Transfer and Advancement At of 
     1995. The Administration supports the amendments to the 
     Fastener Quality Act included in H.R. 2196.
       Again, thank you for your letter. Please let me know if you 
     have any additional questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald H. Brown.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Congresswoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. It will cover some of the subjects she has 
already spoken eloquently about.
  There has been concern expressed in parts of the executive branch 
regarding section 12(d) of this bill which is our committee's 
codification of OMB Circular A-119 which the gentlewoman has 

[[Page H14334]]
referred to. I would like to be reassured that the Congresswoman's 
understanding is consistent with my understanding of the scope of 
Section 12(d).
  First, the term ``voluntary, private sector, consensus standards 
bodies'' is used throughout the section but is not defined. I assume 
that the voluntary consensus standards bodies referred to in this 
section are our nation's standards development organizations such as 
the American Society for Testing and Materials, the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Society 
of Automotive Engineers and the umbrella organization, the American 
National Standards Institute.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, he is 
correct. We used voluntary consensus standards in the same manner that 
it would be used in the engineering and standards communities when they 
talk about technical, mechanical, or engineering standards. The private 
sector consensus standards bodies covered by the act are engineering 
societies and trade associations as well as organizations whose primary 
purpose is development or promotion of standards. The standards they 
develop are the common language of measurement, used to promote 
interoperability and ease of communications in commerce. We meant to 
cover only those standards which are developed through an open process 
in which all parties and experts have ample opportunity to participate 
in developing the consensus embodied in that standard. Our use of the 
term ``private sector'' is meant to indicate that these standards are 
developed by umbrella organizations located in the private sector 
rather than to preclude government involvement in standards 
development. In fact, it is my hope that this section will help 
convince the Federal Government to participate more fully in these 
organizations' standards developing activities to increase the 
likelihood that the standards can meet public sector as well as private 
sector needs.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I would assume from your comments that you 
would expect a rule of reason to prevail in the implementation of this 
section and that new bureaucratic procedures would be inconsistent with 
the intent of this section.
  Mrs. MORELLA. If the gentleman would yield further, that was our 
intent in beginning the section with the words ``To the extent 
practicable''. For instance, we would expect Government procurements of 
off-the-shelf commercial products or commodities to be exempted by 
regulation from any review under the act. We also do not intend through 
this section to limit the right of the Government to write 
specifications for what it needs to purchase. Our focus instead is on 
making sure the Federal Government does not reinvent the wheel. We are 
merely asking Federal agencies to make all reasonable efforts to use 
voluntary, private sector, consensus standards unless there is a 
significant reason not to do so when developing regulations or 
describing systems, equipment, components, commodities, and other items 
for procurement. We expect Government specifications to use the private 
sector's standards language rather than unique government standards 
whenever practicable to do so. However, as under OMB Circular A-119, 
agencies would still have broad discretion to decline to use a 
voluntary standard if the agency formally determined that the standard 
was inadequate for government, did not meet statutory criteria, or was 
otherwise inappropriate.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentlewoman for her 
clarification. I agree with the gentlewoman and thank her for her 
explanations. I hope that they will assist in the interpretation of the 
meaning of the language of the bill.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I 
would like to make a few concluding remarks with regard to my general 
support of the legislation.
  I do rise in support of H.R. 2196, the Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995, a bill which does make significant incremental 
steps in the proper direction in Federal technology and laboratory 
policies. Previous speakers have indicated the importance of the 
Federal laboratories as a part of the Nation's scientific and 
technological infrastructure, and I would like to reinforce those 
statements in every way that I can.
  I would like to also mention again, because the gentlewoman from 
Maryland has already mentioned it, that there is nothing in this bill 
more important than the provision which makes the personnel system at 
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology permanent. A decade 
has now passed since the Packard committee recommendations on civil 
service reform for scientists and engineers were presented to the 
Congress. This is a report worth dusting off and reading anew.
  Then science committee chairman Don Fuqua pushed related legislation 
which resulted in a personnel experiment at NIST. For 8 years NIST has 
strived under a merit-based clone of progressive private sector 
personnel systems, and the results are obvious, they are impressive, 
and they are cheaper than the old way of doing business.
  One of the lesser known and least controversial provisions of last 
year's competitive legislation was our attempt to make the NIST 
experimental personnel system its permanent one.
  I am happy the committee has seen fit to report our provisions 
unchanged because it is exactly what NIST needs to continue to attract 
its fair share of the best and the brightest, and I want to 
particularly commend the chairwoman of this subcommittee for 
persevering in getting through the enactment of this very important 
piece of our bills.
  I am also pleased with the standards provisions in the bill, and I 
will abbreviate my remarks on that somewhat. But it will do a great 
deal in rationalizing the procurement of all Federal Government needs, 
particularly in the Defense Department.
  The legislation also makes changes that will be beneficial to NIST, 
to other Federal labs and to the Federal laboratory consortium, some 
which have been mentioned by both the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].

  I do have some reservations about the process really which led to the 
inclusion of the Fastener Quality Act amendments in this bill. I do 
believe that the Fastener Quality Act does need some improvements. This 
bill provides it, but I was not happy with the process with which this 
was done. I have criticized this before. I will not belabor it. We have 
brought this same language to the floor several times. It was defective 
each time because there was not a process of committee hearings and 
review which would have corrected some of the problems.
  I think, but I am still not sure, that all the problems have been 
corrected. I sincerely trust this is the case because I know the 
importance of having a good set of rules on the books to deal with this 
very important problem.
  Having said this mild criticism, I want to make it clear the bill is 
well worth voting for in almost all respects, statutory proof that the 
two parties can work closely together on important legislation and, 
when they do so, as in the present case, the American people emerge the 
winners.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, the Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995, a bill which makes significant incremental 
steps in the proper direction in Federal technology and laboratory 
policy.
  I consider nothing in the bill more important than the provision 
which makes the personnel system at the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology permanent. A decade has now passed since David Packard's 
recommendations on civil service reform for scientists and engineers 
were presented to the Congress. This is a report worth dusting off and 
reading anew. Then Science Committee Chairman Don Fuqua pushed related 
legislation which resulted in a personnel experiment at NIST. For 8 
years NIST has thrived under a merit-based clone of progressive private 
sector personnel systems and the results are obvious, impressive, and 
cheaper than the old way of doing business. One of the lesser known and 
least controversial provisions of last year's competitiveness 
legislation was our attempt to make the NIST experimental personnel 
system, its permanent one. I am happy that the Committee has seen fit 
to report our provision unchanged because it is exactly what NIST needs 
to continue to attract its fair share of the best and the brightest.
  I am also pleased with the standards provisions contained in this 
bill. One of Secretary of 

[[Page H14335]]
Defense Perry's biggest achievements is his replacement of most of his 
Department's military specifications with private sector standards. 
This action may have put a bigger dent to government waste than any 
other during my tenure in Washington. It is also one of the biggest 
victories of common sense over business as usual. Why should the 
government spend the money to design, test, and procure unique parts 
and equipment in instances where it can be shown equally good ones have 
stood the test of the commercial marketplace. What Secretary Perry did 
was reverse the burden of proof. Anyone who wants to develop a standard 
or a specification now has to justify why private sector standards 
won't solve the problem. This bill extends the Perry philosophy to all 
government regulatory and procurement standards using agency heads, 
OMB, and NIST as those who must be convinced that a problem is so 
unique that the private sector does not have a solution. This is a 
problem that our committee worked on during my entire tenure as 
chairman and I am happy that our current majority leadership is taking 
our work a step forward.

  This legislation also makes changes that will be beneficial to NIST, 
to the Federal labs, and to the Federal laboratory consortium. Some 
came from last Congress' Morella-Rockefeller legislation; some came 
from our competitiveness bill. All are non-controversial and welcome 
changes.
  There is only one cloud on the horizon--one set of actions which 
cause me to qualify my endorsement of this legislation ever so 
slightly. This is the unfortunate way in which the complicated issue of 
the Fastener Quality Act Amendments has been handled which I might say 
stands in contrast to the care with which the rest of the bill was 
handled. I regret that the committee did not see fit to hold hearings 
or publicly seek advice on these complicated changes to a rather 
important piece of public health and safety legislation. I expect if we 
had set up hearings and carefully listened to all sides on this issue 
that we would have ended up with a stronger bill and without the 
embarrassment of having to make technical changes on the floor, in the 
committee, and then on the floor again.
  That said, I want to make it clear that HR 2196 in my opinion is a 
bill well worth voting for and in almost all respects statutory proof 
that the two parties can work closely together on important legislation 
and when they do so, as in this case, the American people emerge the 
winners.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have no one else who wishes to speak on this bill, but again I want 
to reiterate what the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] said and 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] had said before in the fact 
that this is an excellent example of bipartisan working together in the 
best interests of our country and our national competitiveness.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill to enhance 
our competitiveness.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlelady from Maryland for 
her leadership in bringing H.R. 2196, the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995, to the floor.
  As chair of the Science Committee, I am proud of the committee's rich 
tradition of promoting technology transfer from our Federal 
laboratories. Beginning with the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
Act of 1980, the Science Committee has originated legislation which has 
stimulated and increased the quality of technology in the United 
States.
  The Stevenson-Wydler Act required Federal laboratories to take an 
active role in technical cooperation and established technology 
transfer offices at all major Federal laboratories. The landmark 
Stevenson-Wydler Act legislation was expanded considerably by the 
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, which allowed a government-
owned, government-operated [GOGO] laboratory staffed by Federal 
employees to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development 
Agreement [CRADA] with industry, universities, and others. The National 
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 extended the CRADA 
authority to a government-owned, contractor-operated [GOCO] laboratory 
such as the Department of Energy laboratories.
  These acts have permitted the private sector to develop cooperative 
research and development agreements [CRADA] with our Federal 
laboratories, thereby providing them access to the expertise of the 
engineers, scientists, and facility resources of our national labs. In 
a CRADA, the laboratories can contribute people, facilities, equipment, 
and ideas, but not funding, while the private sector companies 
contribute people and funding.
  H.R. 2196 provides guidelines that simplify the negotiation of a 
CRADA--addressing a major concern of private sector companies--and, in 
the process, gives companies greater assurance they will share in the 
benefits of the research they fund.
  As a result, the act will reduce the time and effort required to 
develop a CRADA, reduce the uncertainty that can deter companies from 
working with the Government, and thus speed the transfer and 
commercialization of laboratory technology to the American public. The 
act is an important step toward making our Government's huge investment 
in science and technology--made primarily to carry out important 
Government missions--more useful to interested commercial companies and 
our economy.
  By rethinking and improving the method our Government conducts its 
business, without the need to invoke new spending authority, H.R. 2196 
signals a new approach to government technology policy legislation.
  I am also very pleased that H.R. 2196 includes amendments to the 
Fastener Quality Act. These amendments are very important to the 
fastener industry and the need to include these changes to the current 
act is clear. When this committee marked up the Fastener Quality Act in 
1991, I attached an amendment to form the Fastener Advisory Committee. 
This committee was to determine if the act would have a detrimental 
impact on business. The Fastener Advisory Committee reported that 
without their recommended changes the burden of cost would be close to 
$1 billion on the fastener industry.
  We attempted in the last Congress to amend the law, but 
unfortunately, were not successful. We had language pass the House and 
the Senate; however, the language died in conference.
  The act addresses the concerns of the Fastener Advisory Committee 
regarding mill heat certification, mixing of like certified fasteners, 
and sale of minor non-conformances.
  Working with this Congress and NIST, the Fastener Public Law Task 
Force, comprised of members from manufacturing, importing, and 
distributing, has worked to improved the law while maintaining safety 
and quality. The Public Law Task Force represents 85 percent of all 
companies involved in the manufacture, distribution, and importation, 
of fasteners and their suppliers in the United States.
  Combined, the task force represents over 100,000 employees in all 50 
States. We have worked with both sides of the aisle, the 
administration, manufacturers, distributors, and importers to reach 
this solution and I support the changes to the Fastener Quality Act.
  I also support the provisions in the act which relate to standards 
conformity. The act restates existing authorities for National 
Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] activities in standards 
and conformity assessment and requires NIST to coordinate among Federal 
agencies, survey existing State and Federal practices, and report back 
to Congress on recommendations for improvements in these activities.
  In addition, the act codifies, OMB circular A-119 requiring Federal 
agencies to adopt and use standards developed by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies and to work closely with those organizations to ensure 
that the developed standards are consistent with agency needs. These 
provisions are very important since they will have the effect of 
assisting agencies in focusing their attention on the need to work with 
private sector, voluntary consensus standards bodies.
  As an original cosponsor, I urge support for the passage of H.R. 
2196, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered today includes 
numerous amendments to the Fastener Quality Act.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a multiyear, indepth investigation of 
counterfeit and substandard fasteners that ultimately led to the 
enactment of the Fastener Quality Act on November 16, 1990. 
Unfortunately, the regulations implementing the law have not yet been 
issued by the National Institute on Standards and Technology [NIST] and 
are now more than 4 years overdue.
  During the last Congress, as part of the National Competitiveness 
Act, amendments to the Fastener Quality Act were passed by the House. 
The amendments adopted related to heat mill certification and minor 
nonconformance. In its bill, the Senate included the same amendments, 
plus an additional amendment that would have permitted commingling at 
all levels of the industry--from manufacturing through distribution. I, 
as well as the administration, opposed this amendment because it would 
seriously undermine safety and accountability under the law. Because 
efforts to pass the underlying bill were unsuccessful, the fastener 
amendments were not enacted into law and NIST has made no effort to 
issue the long overdue implementing regulations.
  The bill before us includes amendments on heat mill certification, 
minor nonconformance, commingling, as well as other amendments. The 
commingling amendment appears to be more limited in scope than the 
previous Senate provision and allows purchasers to request 

[[Page H14336]]
lot traceability. There are additional amendments to the Fastener 
Quality Act that also appear in the bill. To my knowledge, no hearings 
have been held on these amendments by any congressional committee nor 
has any adequate explanation or justification been advanced for these 
provisions, other than that certain fastener industry interests support 
them.
  I note that Chairman Bliley recently wrote Chairman Walker, making it 
clear that the Commerce Committee has not waived its jurisdictional 
concerns about the legislation and requesting that members of the 
Commerce Committee be named as equal conferees on fastener provisions 
in any ensuing House-Senate conference. I wish to express my support 
for Chairman Bliley's request and trust that we will be able to have an 
opportunity to participate fully in any conference on these issues of 
great importance to public safety.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the amendments to the 
Fastener Quality Act which are in H.R. 2196.
  The Fastener Quality Act is the result of a 4-year-long study by the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce. 
The statute requires testing and labeling procedures for certain grades 
of bolts and fasteners subject to high degrees of stress, such as in 
military and aerospace applications. The requirements of the Fastener 
Quality Act were designed to prevent the use of substandard bolts in 
applications where, if they were to fail, death or injury could occur.
  The Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have a long history 
of working together on this act. After the Commerce Committee Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee investigation, our committees worked 
together to secure passage of this legislation in the 101st Congress 
and the amendments to the Fastener Act contained in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Fastener Quality Act included in 
this legislation are almost identical to those passed by the House in 
H.R. 2405 earlier this year. These amendments simply restore the 
original intent of the Fastener Quality Act. Additionally, they provide 
for notice and comment on the appropriate threshold standard to assess 
a significant alteration with respect to the electroplating of 
fasteners. The Committee on Commerce has no objection to these 
amendments and urges their adoption.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2196, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________