[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1078-S1083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1995
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2196;
further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 3463
(Purpose: To make perfecting amendments)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senators Rockefeller and Burns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for Mr. Rockefeller,
for himself and Mr. Burns, proposes an amendment numbered
3463.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 24, insert ``pre-negotiated'' before
``field''.
On page 5, beginning on line 4, strike ``if the Government
finds'' and insert ``in exceptional circumstances and only if
the Government determines''.
On page 5, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
This determination is subject to administrative appeal and
judicial review under section 203(2) of title 35, United
States Code.
On page 13, strike lines 10 through 17 and insert the
following:
Section 11(i) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710(i)) is amended by inserting
``loan, lease, or'' before ``give''.
Beginning with line 23 on page 21, strike though line 3 on
page 22 and insert the following:
``(13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local technical
standards activities and conformity assessment activities,
with private sector technical standards activities and
conformity assessment activities, with the goal of
eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in the
development and promulgation of conformity assessment
requirements and measures.''.
On page 22, beginning on line 5, strike ``by January 1,
1996,'' and insert ``within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act,''.
Beginning with line 8 on page 22, strike through line 5 on
page 23 and insert the following:
(d) Utilization of Consensus Technical Standards by Federal
Agencies; Reports.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3) of
this subsection, all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and departments.
(2) Consultation; participation.--In carrying out paragraph
(1) of this subsection, Federal agencies and departments
shall consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus
standards bodies and shall, when such participation is in the
public interest and is compatible with agency and
departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget
resources, participate with such bodies in the development of
technical standards.
(3) Exception.--If compliance with paragraph (1) of this
subsection is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use
technical standards that are not developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such
agency or department transmits to the Office of Management
and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such
standards. Each year, beginning with fiscal year 1997, the
Office of Management and Budget shall transmit to Congress
and its committees a report summarizing all explanations
received in the preceding year under this paragraph.
(4) Definition of technical standards.--As used in this
subsection, the term ``technical standards'' means
performance-based or design-specific technical specifications
and related management systems practices.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now
considering legislation to improve the transfer of technology from
Federal laboratories to the private sector. Two related bills are now
before the Senate: First, S. 1164, which I introduced and have been
joined as a cosponsor by the distinguished Science Subcommittee
chairman, Senator Burns, and second, the House-passed companion bill,
H.R. 2196, introduced by the distinguished chairwoman of the House
Technology
[[Page S1079]]
Subcommittee, Representative Connie Morella. House cosponsors include
Science Committee chairman, Bob Walker, Science Committee ranking
member, George Brown, and Technology Subcommittee ranking, member, John
Tanner. We also have consulted closely with the administration on this
bill.
It is my hope that the Senate will now pass H.R. 2196 with small
perfecting and clarification amendments worked out in consultation with
interested Senators. We have worked with the House on these perfecting
amendments, and I hope that the House can pass the amended H.R. 2196
without further changes, clearing the bill for transmittal to the
President.
The title of the House-passed bill is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act. The Senate title is similar: the
Technology Transfer Improvements Act. The two bills are based on
earlier legislation that Representative Morella and I introduced in the
last Congress and which has been thoroughly checked with all interested
parties. The current legislation makes valuable amendments in existing
law but contains no authorizations or controversial spending proposals.
It has bipartisan support here in Congress, and has the support of the
administration. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1164 without
objection on November 3 of last year. H.R. 2196 passed the House by
voice vote on December 12.
Mr. President, this is a constructive bill that has earned the
bipartisan support now evident. The legislation has three main parts.
First, the heart of both bills is legislation that Mrs. Morella and I
authored to help improve the transfer of technology from Federal
laboratories to the private sector. The Federal Government spends some
$20 billion a year on its laboratories. They employ some of the finest
scientists and engineers in the world, have some of the best facilities
and new technologies. This bill will cut the time and redtape involved
in creating joint research projects between companies and these Federal
laboratories. And that, Mr. President, will help companies in West
Virginia and all across the country. The country or countries that can
develop and use new technologies most quickly and efficiently will win
the markets of the future. This bill will help speed joint research
projects, and increase their number, leading to new technologies that
companies can use to produce new products, revitalize existing ones,
and build markets. And that means more jobs and a more competitive
America.
Second, the bill contains important amendments to the Fastener
Quality Act of 1990, a law which regulates the manufacture and sale of
high-strength bolts and other fasteners used in safety-related
applications such as motor vehicles, aircraft, and buildings. These
amendments have been championed here in the Senate by Senator Burns,
and they will reduce the burden of the law on private industry while
maintaining public safety.
Third, the House version of the bill now before us contains several
nonspending measures regarding technical agencies and the use of
private-sector technical standards.
background on the technology transfer provisions
Mr. President, the heart of the legislation, in both the Senate and
House versions, is section 4, which will improve the transfer of
technology from Federal laboratories by giving both laboratories and
industrial partners clearer guidelines on the distribution of
intellectual property rights from inventions resulting from cooperative
research projects.
Specifically, the bill amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act, which since 1986 has allowed Federal laboratories to
enter into cooperative research and development agreements [CRADA's]
with industry and other collaborating parties. The laboratories can
contribute people, facilities, equipment, and ideas, but not funding,
and the companies contribute people and funding.
As I pointed out when I introduced S. 1164 on August 10, even under
the current law the CRADA provision has been a success. Hundreds of
these agreements have been signed and carried out in recent years,
making expertise and technology that the Federal Government has already
paid for through its mission-related work available to the wider
economy. But we also have seen a problem. Currently, the law provides
little guidance on what intellectual property rights a collaborating
partner should receive from a CRADA. The current law gives agencies
very broad discretion on this matter, which provides flexibility but
also means that both companies and laboratory executives must
laboriously negotiate patent rights each time they discuss a new CRADA.
Neither side has much guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate
agreement regarding intellectual property developed under the CRADA.
Options range from assigning full patent title to the company all the
way to providing the firm with only a nonexclusive license for a narrow
field of use.
In conversations with company executives, we learned that this
uncertainty--and the time and effort involved in negotiating
intellectual property from scratch in each CRADA--was often a barrier
to working with some laboratories. Companies are reluctant to enter
into a CRADA, or, equally important, to commit additional resources to
commercialize a CRADA invention, unless they have some assurance they
will control important patent rights.
In 1993, I began working with Congresswoman Morella on possible ways
to reduce the uncertainty and negotiating burden facing companies,
while still ensuring that the Government interest remains protected. To
begin legislative discussion on this matter, I introduced S. 1537 on
October 7, 1993, for myself and Senator DeConcini, then chairman of the
Senate Patent Subcommittee. That bill would have directed Federal
laboratories to assign to the collaborating party--the company--title
to any intellectual property arising from a CRADA, in exchange for
reasonable compensation to the laboratory and certain patent
safeguards.
S. 1537 also contained a second provision--an additional incentive
for Federal scientists to report and develop inventions that might have
commercial as well as government value. The General Accounting Office
[GAO] had recommended that Federal inventors receive more of the
royalties received by laboratories as government compensation under
CRADA's. My bill incorporated that recommendation.
Soon after Senator DeConcini and I introduced our bill, Congresswoman
Morella introduced the companion House bill, H.R. 3590. In subsequent
House and Senate hearings, the bill received strong support from
industry, professional societies, trade associations, and the
administration. At that point, we also began working closely with
Commerce Department Under Secretary for Technology Mary Good and her
staff, who helped us obtain detailed technical suggestions from
executive branch agencies and other patent experts. We made major
progress during the 103d Congress, but in 1994 ran out of time to
complete action on the legislation.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT BILL
The bills that Representative Morella and I introduced this year are
based on this earlier legislation but also reflect suggestions made by
the experts. The revised bill continues to focus on the twin issues of
company rights under a CRADA and royalty-sharing for Federal inventors.
The key CRADA provision of H.R. 2196--as well as S. 1164--is section
4, which amends section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Act. Those section
12 amendments, in turn, have two key provisions. One deals with
inventions made, pursuant to a CRADA, solely by the collaborating
party's employee. In this case, the laboratory shall ensure that the
collaborating party may retain title to that invention. The rationale,
of course, is that since the collaborating party's employee is solely
responsible for the invention, the collaborating party should have the
right of title.
The other key section 12 amendment concerns inventions developed in
whole or in part by a laboratory employee under a CRADA. The current
bill would give a collaborating party a statutory option to choose an
exclusive license for a field of use for any such invention. Agencies
may still assign full patent title for such inventions to the company;
the agencies we consulted
[[Page S1080]]
felt they needed to retain that flexibility, and our new bill allows
them to do so. But the important point is that a company will now know
that it is assured of having no less than an exclusive license in a
field of use identified through negotiations between the laboratory and
the company. This statutory guideline will give companies real
assurance that they will get important intellectual property out of any
CRADA they fund. In turn, that assurance will give those companies both
an extra incentive to enter into a CRADA and the knowledge that they
can safely invest further in the commercialization of that invention,
knowing they have an exclusive claim on it.
Senators Domenici and Bingaman have raised an important point about
this provision. They and I agree that the relevant field of use for
which a collaborating party has the option of an exclusive license
shall be selected through a process of negotiation between the
laboratory and that collaborating party. As with other provisions of a
CRADA, the field of use is selected through a process of negotiation
between the two parties. It is a pre-negotiated field of use. As I will
discuss below, we propose a perfecting amendment to clarify this key
point.
The bill further provides that in return for granting the option of
an exclusive license in that pre-negotiated field of use, the
Government may negotiate for reasonable compensation, such as
royalties. And the Government retains minimal rights to use the
invention under unusual but important circumstances, such as when the
party holding the exclusive license is unwilling or unable to use the
invention to meet important health and safety needs. However, and I
want to emphasize this point, we believe strongly that the Government
should exercise these rights only under the most exceptional
circumstances. As the distinguished Senators from New Mexico have
pointed out, we do not want the existence of these Government rights to
deter companies from entering into CRADA's. And I want to assure these
Senators and industry that these rights would only be used under the
most exceptional circumstances. For that reason, as I will discuss
shortly, I propose a further perfecting amendment to make this point
even more clear.
A related point deals with one of the grounds under which the
Government might exercise these rights. We mention that one such
circumstance would be that ``the collaborating party has failed to
comply with an agreement containing provisions described in subsection
(c)(4)(B)'' of the existing section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Act.
Subsection (c)(4)(B) says, in part that a laboratory director in
deciding what CRADA's to enter into shall ``give preference to business
units located in the United States which agree that products embodying
inventions made under the cooperative research and development
agreement or produced through the use of such inventions will be
manufactured substantially in the United States.* * *''
I want to emphasize two points about this provision and its role in
the new language giving the Government, under exceptional
circumstances, a right to compel a licensee to share its licensed
technology.
First, subsection 12(c)(4)(B) of the Stevenson-Wydler Act directs
laboratory directors to give preference to those organizations which
agree to this condition but is flexible enough to envision
circumstances where this condition is not practical or appropriate. One
example might be the case of a research technique or process that in
itself is not used to make products. Or in the case of biotechnology,
one might create and license a gene therapy technique which leads to no
manufactured product. So this subsection was never intended to require
a substantial U.S. manufacturing agreement in all CRADA's. The second
point follows from the first. The absence of such an agreement in a
particular CRADA in no way creates grounds for the Government to
exercise the new exceptional circumstances powers. The new language
simply says that if, and only if, a collaborating party voluntarily
includes a substantial U.S. manufacturing agreement in its CRADA, and
also if it then fails in a truly exceptional manner to comply with that
agreement, then grounds exist for the Government to exercise these new
powers. This new provision provides important protection for the
taxpayer in the case of that very rare collaborating party which abuses
its exclusive license, but it, by definition, does not apply to CRADA's
which do not include an agreement regarding substantial U.S.
manufacturing.
I also want to mention that in order to give a collaborating party
full due process in the event that the Government ever decides to
exercise any of these exceptional circumstances powers, we are offering
another perfecting amendment to give collaborating parties a right of
administrative and judicial appeal which already exists in one other
provision of Federal patent law. I will discuss that amendment, as well
as the others I have mentioned, in the later part of my statement which
deals with the amendments we are offering today.
Overall, Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate continues the
original purpose we envisioned in 1993--providing guidelines that
simplify the negotiation of CRADA's and, in the process, give companies
greater assurance they will share in the benefits of the research they
fund. We expect that this change will increase the number of CRADA's,
reduce the time and effort required to negotiate them, and thus speed
the transfer of laboratory technology and know-how to the broader
economy.
The legislation now before the Senate also contains a slightly
revised version of the provision regarding royalty-sharing for Federal
investors. Under the new bill, agencies each year must pay a Federal
inventor the first $2,000 in royalties received because of that
person's inventions, plus at least 15 percent of any additional annual
royalties. By rewarding Federal inventors, we will give them an
incentive to report inventions and work in CRADA's. The bill involves
no Federal spending; all rewards would be from royalties paid to the
Government by companies and others.
fastener quality act amendments
Mr. President, the second major provision of the bill now before us
is a set of amendments to the Fastener Quality Act of 1990. That act
regulates the manufacture and distribution of certain high-strength
bolts and other fasteners used in safety-related applications, such as
building, aircraft, and motor vehicles.
The Fastener Advisory Committee created under the 1990 law has
recommended a series of changes which will continue to ensure the
safety of these high-strength fasteners while reducing the regulatory
burden on business. The Senate first passed these amendments in March
1994 as part of a larger technology bill. That 1994 bill did not become
law, however, so this year in the Commerce Committee, Senator Burns,
who is the Senate leader on this matter, offered these changes as an
amendment to S. 1164. The same amendments were included in H.R. 2196.
These changes have been worked out with a very broad set of interested
parties, including major users of fasteners, and I know of no
controversy in the Senate regarding them.
other provisions in h.r. 2196
Finally, the House version of the legislation also contains a set of
nonspending amendments regarding NIST operations and voluntary industry
standards. While these amendments are not currently in S. 1164, they
did not lead to any controversy on the House floor.
One such provision, section 9, is intended to make it easier for
Federal laboratories to loan, lease, or donate excess research
equipment to educational institutions and nonprofit organizations. As I
will explain shortly, I will shortly propose a perfecting amendment and
colloquy pertaining to section 9.
Another provision, section 12(d), would codify an existing Office of
Management and Budget circular, OMB Circular A-119. Following the OMB
circular, the amendment directs Federal agencies to use, to the extent
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical,
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards organizations. We believe this step will reduce
costs for both government and the private sector. For example, if off-
the-shelf products meeting a voluntary consensus standards can, in the
judgment of an Agency, meet its procurement requirements, then the
Agency
[[Page S1081]]
saves money over buying products built to special government
specifications and commercial industry benefits from increased sales to
the Government.
I will shortly discuss the several perfecting amendments that we are
now offering to this bill, but here I want to mention that one of these
amendments clarifies the intent and scope of section 12(d). We have
worked closely with Senators Baucus and Johnston, and their staffs, on
this rewrite. And here, based on our discussions with these offices, I
want to emphasize five key points about the intent and effect of this
provision, as amended, in order to deal with concerns that have been
raised.
First, we are talking here about technical standards pertaining to
products and processes, such as the size, strength, or technical
performance of a product, process, or material. The amended version of
section 12(d) explicitly defines the term ``technical standards'' as
meaning performance-based or design-specific technical specifications
and related management systems practices. An example of a management
system practice standard is the ISO 9000 series of standards specifying
procedures for maintaining quality assurance in manufacturing.
In this subsection, we are emphatically not talking about requiring
or encouraging any agency to follow private sector attempts to set
regulatory standards or requirements. For example, we do not intend for
the Government to have to follow any attempts by private standards
bodies to set specific environmental regulations. Regular consensus
standards bodies do not do that, in any case. But no one should presume
that a new private group could use section 12(d) to dictate regulations
to Federal agencies. The amended version of this subsection makes clear
that agencies and departments use ``such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.''
Second, consensus standards are standards which are developed by
voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. These
organizations are established explicitly for the purpose of developing
such standards through a process having three characteristics--First,
openness, defined as meaning that participation in the standards
development process shall be open to all persons who are directly and
materially affected by the activity in question; second, balance of
interest, which means that the consensus body responsible for the
development of a standard shall be comprised of representatives of all
categories of interest that relate to the subject--for example,
manufacturer, user, regulatory, insurance/inspection, employee/union
interest); and third, due process, which means a procedure by which any
individual or organization who believes that an action or inaction of a
third party causes unreasonable hardship or potential harm is provided
the opportunity to have a fair hearing of their concerns. In short, a
legitimate consensus standards organization provides open process in
which all parties and experts have ample opportunity to participate in
developing the consensus.
Examples include traditional standards organizations, such as the
American Society of Testing and Materials, as well as newer
organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force which has
effectively used consensus procedures coupled with real-time
implementation and testing to develop the technical standards for
Internet protocols and technology. Many of these standards development
organizations are accredited, including those accredited by the
American National Standards Institute.
This provision is not intended to direct agencies and departments to
consider standards from organizations that do not meet the criteria of
openness, balance of interest, and due process.
Third, the amended version of section 12(d) makes clear that if
compliance with the requirement to use voluntary consensus technical
standards ``is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical, a Federal agency or department may elect to use technical
standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.'' We intend that these other technical standards may
be ones developed by the Agency or such other standards as the Agency
may deem appropriate.
Fourth, we intend that the determination of what is or is not
``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical'' is solely
the decision of the agency department involved. We do require that if
an agency or department does elect to use other technical standards,
they notify the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. But if an Agency
decides that no product or process based on voluntary consensus
standards meets its requirements, it does not have to get approval from
anyone before it sets its own specifications. It most certainly does
not need approval from any private sector standards organization.
Moreover, the provision neither provides nor implies any private sector
veto or review of the agency's decision. Nor does it provide, nor do we
intend to provide, any legal test or legal standard or decisionmaking
requirement that an agency must meet before it decides which types of
technical standards to choose. As a result, section 12(d) provides no
new or additional basis for either administrative or judicial review.
In other words, the intent of section 12(d) is exactly that of the
following provision of OMB Circular A-119: It should also be noted,
however, that the provisions of this circular are intended for internal
management purposes only and are not intended to: First, create delay
in the administrative process; second, provide new grounds for judicial
review; or third, create legal rights enforceable against agencies or
their officers.
Fifth and finally, the term ``Federal agencies and departments'' is
meant to refer to entities of the executive branch, and not to
independent regulatory commissions. Commissions may have their own
separate statutory requirements regarding whether or not to use
consensus technical standards; one such example is the Consumer Product
Safety Commission [CPSC]. I want to emphasize that section 12(d) is not
intended to apply to the CPSC or other independent regulatory
commissions.
additional perfecting amendments
Mr. President, conversations with interested Senators have led me,
after consultation with Chairman Burns, to offer six other small
perfecting amendments that clarify key provisions of the bill. I want
to mention them briefly, as well as thank the relevant Senators for
working with us on these issues.
First, as discussed earlier, we propose to clarify that the field of
use for which a collaborating party may get an exclusive license is a
pre-negotiated field of use. That is, the company alone does not pick
the field of use. Like other provisions of CRADA, the field or fields
of use for which a license applies is the result of negotiations
between the company and the laboratory. This has been the intent all
along of both the Senate and House sponsors of this legislation, as
reflected in both House and Senate report language. However, Senator
Domenici has asked that we make this point explicit in the bill
language itself, and I am happy to do so.
Second, as also discussed earlier, we want to make clear that an
Agency will exercise its rights under the bill to require the holder of
an exclusive technology to share that technology only in exceptional
circumstances. Senators Bingaman and Domenici have requested this
clarification, and I am pleased to do so because this has been our
intent all along. We know that there may be some exceptional, and very
rare, circumstances under which the holder of an exclusive license is
not willing or able to use an important technology or use it as
provided in the original CRADA agreement. We feel strongly that the
Government must maintain some rights to deal with such a situation, but
agree with our distinguished colleagues that these rights should be
exercised only under the most exceptional circumstances. We do not want
prospective CRADA participants to feel that the Government will
exercise these rights on a routine or arbitrary basis.
Third, Senator Johnston has asked that a provision from other Federal
patent law--the Bayh-Dole Act--be added to our bill's section regarding
the exceptional circumstances under which the Government may exercise
its right to require a collaborating party,
[[Page S1082]]
holding an exclusive license to an invention made in whole or in part
by a laboratory employee, to grant a license to a responsible
applicant. That provision from the Bayh-Dole is section 203(2) of title
35, United States Code, and as added here it would provide a
collaborating party under these exceptional circumstances a right to an
administrative appeal, as described under 37 CFR part 401, and to
judicial review. In short, if the Government determines that it has
grounds to force a collaborating party to grant a license to additional
party, according to the criteria set forth in the bill, then that
collaborating party will have a right of due process and appeal.
Fourth, Senator Glenn, in his capacity as ranking member of the
Committee on Governmental Affairs, has raised a point concerning
section 9's provisions on the disposal of excess laboratory research
equipment. We delete one part of section 9 and plan to enter into a
colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Ohio regarding the
procedures under which Federal laboratories may loan or lease research
equipment.
Fifth, the date on which a report required under section 12(c) is due
is changed from January 1, 1996, to within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this act.
A final amendment clarifies section 12(b), a provision which deals
with the role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
[NIST] in coordinating government standards activities. The amendment
corrects a small drafting error. The original text, in part, implies
that NIST is to coordinate private sector standards and conformity
assessment activities. Of course, we in no way intend that NIST or any
other part of the Federal Government is to coordinate, direct, or
supervise private sector activities. The amendment makes clear that
NIST is to coordinate with private sector activities.
I thank Senators Glenn, Domenici, Bingaman, Johnston, and Baucus, and
their staffs, for working with us on these perfecting amendments.
conclusion
Mr. President, this bill is a concrete step toward making our
Government's huge investment in science and technology more useful to
commercial companies and our economy. Companies in West Virginia and
other States will not find it easier to partner with Federal
laboratories across the country. The winner will be the American
economy, which will get more economic benefit out of the billions of
dollars we invest each year in our Government laboratories. The result
will be new technologies, new products, and new jobs for Americans.
In closing, I want to thank and compliment my good friends,
Representative Morella and Senator Burns, for their great leadership on
this legislation. I also want to thank their staffs, the staffs for
Congressmen Brown and Tanner, and Chairman Pressler's staff for their
hard work. Special thanks also goes to Under Secretary of Commerce Mary
Lowe Good and her staff, particularly Chief Counsel Mark Bohannon, for
their work in reviewing the legislation and working with other Federal
agencies. Numerous technical experts helped us with the legislation,
and I thank them. I also want to thank Dr. Thomas Forbord, who as a
congressional fellow on my staff several years ago drafted the first
version of this valuable legislation.
Mr. President, this is a good bill that will benefit companies in
West Virginia, Montana, Maryland, and all other States. It will help
speed the creation of new technologies, will help make American
companies more competitive, and will help create and retain good
American jobs.
I urge our colleagues to accept the House-passed version, H.R. 2196,
with these minor perfecting amendments, and return the bill to the
House so that they may concur in these minor changes and send the
legislation on the President for his signature.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, as amended,
which is a bill to amend the Stevenson-Wylder Technology Innovation Act
of 1980. The Senate version of this bill, S. 1164, was reported out of
the Commerce Committee in November of last year. Our system of more
than 700 Federal laboratories is one of our most precious national
assets. These labs conduct important research and development programs
to keep the United States on the cutting edge of science and
technology.
As chairman of the Science Subcommittee, I cosponsored S. 1164 to
help accelerate the transfer of technology from our 700 Federal labs to
the private industry, where it can be converted into commercial goods
and services for the American people. Our cooperative research and
development agreements [CRADA's] have proven a very effective way of
accomplishing technology transfer without increasing Federal spending.
These CRADA's enable Government and industry to conduct research
together which hopefully will generate inventions and technological
breakthroughs that can be later commercialized. It is the national
interest to encourage more of this kind of joint research.
With that in mind, this bill seeks to encourage more joint research
by clarifying the intellectual property rights that the industry
partner may receive in inventions generated by the joint research. In
this way, the company knows going into the arrangement that it will
have the right to commercialize the results of its joint research. The
bill also makes clear that, in exchange for the rights given to the
company, the Government is entitled to reasonable compensation, which
would typically involve a share of the royalties from any successful
commercialization efforts. So, both the Federal labs and their private
sector partners in these agreements stand to benefit from this
legislation.
Equally important, the bill provides greater incentives for the
Federal lab scientists to commercialize their inventions by increasing
their share of any royalties received from the sale of products arising
from the joint research.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that this bill, as amended, is
supported by industry, the Federal lab directors, and the research
community and has broad bipartisan support in Congress. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 2196 as amended pass it.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from
West Virginia and the Senator from Montana in a colloquy to clarify
their intentions under section 9 of the pending bill. As currently
drafted, section 9 would expand Federal laboratory directors' authority
to dispose of research equipment by allowing them to loan or lease this
property. Under existing law, this property may already be given to
eligible institutions outright as a gift.
I would begin by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the
committee for agreeing with me that the original language in this
section was overbroad. I very much appreciate their willingness to
amend the House bill.
With regard to the remaining loan and lease provision, I would like
to clarify the committee's intent with respect to the continuing
Federal liability and responsibility for leased or loaned equipment.
What steps does the committee envision Federal agencies should take in
order to limit the taxpayer's liability for such equipment?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his
interest in this matter, and I respect his judgment on these issues. To
answer his question, it is this Senator's intent that, prior to any
equipment being leased or loaned under this provision, a Federal agency
shall issue guidance which clearly states the steps a lab director or
agency head shall take in order to clearly define the Federal
Government's liability and responsibility with respect to the leased or
loaned property. Such guidance should address issues like: The ongoing
Federal obligation to maintain or upgrade the leased equipment; the
necessary steps to adequately train the recipient in the safe and
proper use of the equipment; the appropriate inventory controls needed
to track the equipment which both the lab and the recipient institution
should have in place; and whether any financial issues, such as
equipment depreciation, should be considered in the lease-loan
agreement.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I agree with the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Montana and West
Virginia for their clarification of this matter. I look forward to
continuing to work with them to strengthen our Nation's science and
math education infrastructure.
[[Page S1083]]
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to,
the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, as amended, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any colloquy and statements
relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 3463) was agreed to.
So the bill (H.R. 2196), as amended, was passed.
____________________