[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.

                          ____________________