[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1262-H1267]
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 concur in
the Senate amendments to 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.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendments:
Page 3, line 24, before ``field'' insert ``pre-
negotiated''.
Page 5, line 4, strike out all after ``only'' down to and
including ``finds'' in line 5 and insert ``in exceptional
circumstances and only if the Government determines''.
Page 5, after line 15 insert: ``This determination is
subject to administrative appeal and judicial review under
section 203(2) of title 35, United States Code.''.
Page 13, strike out lines 10 through 17 and insert:
``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'.''.
Page 21, strike out all after line 22 over to and including
line 3 on page 22 and insert:
``(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.''.
Page 22, lines 5 and 6, strike out ``by January 1, 1996,''
and insert ``within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act,''.
Page 22, strike out all after line 7, over to and including
line 5 on page 23 and insert:
``(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.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]
will each 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.
Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 2196 on December 12, 1995, by
voice vote. Subsequently, on February 7, 1996, the Senate passed H.R.
2196 with an amendment. Today, we are prepared to enact H.R. 2196, as
amended, into law.
The Senate-passed amendment was negotiated in conjunction with this
body and has the support of the sponsors of the bill. The Senate
amendment is technical in nature, serves to clarify
[[Page H1263]]
the existing bill language, and meets with the original intent of H.R.
2196, as originally passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2196 will implement long-needed improvements to the
body of laws which encourage and stimulate the transfer of technology
developed, with Federal research and development dollars, to the
private sector. It does this in three principal ways:
First, by providing necessary guidance in defining the intellectual
property rights of private sector Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement [CRADA] partners for technologies created from joint research
and development activities conducted in partnership with Federal
laboratories. Industry partners will be assured of having, at minimum,
an exclusive license in a prenegotiated field of use for the new
technology. This should promote prompt commercialization of these
discoveries, as well as make a CRADA more attractive at a time when
both Federal laboratories and industry need to work closer together for
their mutual benefit and our national competitiveness;
Second, by enhancing incentives for Federal inventors to develop new
inventions in their fields of research; and
Third, by allowing Federal labs greater flexibility to use the
royalty stream resulting from the commercialization of Federal
inventions to develop new inventions in their fields of research; and
Third, by allowing Federal labs greater flexibility to use the
royalty stream resulting from the commercialization of Federal
inventions to support the work of their laboratories, and reward
participants in CRADA activities for their work on successful projects.
At this time, I will not detail at length, the many specific ways in
which H.R. 2196 accomplishes these goals, and would refer my colleagues
to my December 12, 1995, statement in the Record, for more specific
information in that regard.
I would note, however, that equally notable to the significant
technology transfer provisions contained in H.R. 2196, is language in
section 12 that will improve the climate for the Government adoption of
private sector-developed, voluntary consensus standards, by directing
Federal agencies to focus upon increasing their use of such standards
wherever possible.
The effect of this section 12 provision would be a reduction in
Federal procurement and operating costs. For example, instead of
mandating products built only to special Government-created standards,
the Federal Government can cut costs by purchasing off-the-shelf
products meeting a voluntary consensus standard that, in the judgment
of an agency, meet its procurement requirements. Commercial industry
also would benefit from such action through greater opportunities for
competitive Government bidding and increased sales to the Government.
Additionally, section 12 gives the National Institute of Standards
and Technology important new authority in its organic statute to act as
the Federal coordinator for Government entities responsible for the
development of technical standards and conformity assessment
activities. As a result, the Federal Government can move with greater
speed to implement the routine use of voluntary consensus standards and
eliminate unnecessary duplication of conformity assessment activities.
Section 12, as amended, has been endorsed by our Nation's businesses,
as well as the standards community, and has been approved by the
administration. They are anxious to implement the much-needed
clarifications and new Government responsibilities defined in the bill
to streamline and improve our Federal standards responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the amendment, approved by the other
body, to H.R. 2196. Since my distinguished colleagues will be
discussing the amendment in greater detail, I will only provide a
summary at this time. The Senate amended H.R. 2196 in the following
manner:
Made clear that exclusive field-of-use licenses extended to private
sector CRADA partners of technologies, developed within joint research
projects, shall be defined by a good-faith negotiation between the
respective parties;
Ensured that any exercise of march-in rights by a Government entity
shall be done only in exceptional circumstances, and would be subject
to administrative appeal and judicial review;
Ensured that transfers of excess laboratory equipment to educational
and charitable institutions shall be done subject to Federal property
disposal accountability requirements; and
Tightened the focus of our language, codifying OMB Circular A-119,
regarding the adoption of voluntary, consensus standards and conformity
assessment activities to ensure that agencies are clear that such
efforts are to be conducted with due regard for the requirement of law
and within the parameters of agency missions, responsibilities, and
budgets as defined by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is strongly supported by the
administration, our friends in the Federal laboratory system, and the
agencies that have responsibility for administering those laboratories.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2196, as amended, today so we can
send it to the President and give the important new provisions in the
bill the full force of law.
Mr. Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time, I include for
the Record the following summary and outline of H.R. 2196 and the
Senate amendment, which were drafted by the committee staff.
H.R. 2196, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
objectives:
Encourages utilization of our federal laboratories to
enhance our nation's industrial competitiveness in the global
marketplace by promoting partnership ventures with federal
laboratories and private-sector industry.
Advances prompt commercialization of inventions created in
such a collaborative agreement, by guaranteeing the industry
partner sufficient intellectual property rights to the
invention.
Provides important incentives and rewards to federal
laboratory personnel who create new inventions.
Provides several clarifying and strengthening amendments to
current technology transfer laws.
Also makes changes affecting the Fastner Quality Act, the
federal use of standards, and the management and
administration of scientific research and standards
measurement at the NIST.
legislative history:
Passed the Technology Subcommittee on October 18, 1995
Passed the Science Committee on October 25, 1995
Committee Report filed on December 7, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-
390)
Passed the House of Representatives on December 12, 1995
Passed the Senate with an amendment on February 7, 1996
Considered for enactment into law by the House on February
27, 1996
summary outline of major provisions of h.r. 2196 (h. rept. 104-390)
Statutory authority:
Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-480) and the Federal Technology Transfer Act of
1986 (P.L. 99-502), among other provisions, by creating
incentives and eliminating impediments to encourage
technology commercialization, and for other purposes
Impacts upon technology transfer policies in both a
government-owned, government-operated (GOGO) laboratory and a
government-owned, contractor-operated (GOGO) laboratory
Effect upon technology transfer in a CRADA:
Provides assurances to United States companies that it will
be granted sufficient intellectual property rights to justify
prompt commercialization of inventions arising from a
cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with a
federal laboratory
Provides important incentives and rewards to federal
laboratory personnel who create new inventions
Effect upon CRADA private sector partner under the act
Guarantees right to option, at minimum, of exclusive
license in a pre-negotiated field of use for inventions
resulting from a CRADA
Assures that privileged and confidential information will
be protected when CRADA invention is used by the government
Assures private sector partner the right to possess its own
inventions developed in a CRADA
Effect upon Federal Government under the Act
Provides right to use invention for legitimate government
needs
Clarifies contributions laboratories can make in a CRADA
and continues current prohibition of direct federal funds to
a private sector partner in a CRADA
Clarifies that agencies may use royalty revenue to hire
temporary personnel to assist in the CRADA or in related
projects
[[Page H1264]]
Permits agencies to use royalty revenue for related
research in the laboratory, and for related administrative
and legal costs
Allows federal government to require licensing to others
only in exceptional circumstances for compelling public
health, safety, or regulatory needs while providing
administrative appeal and judicial review in such rare
circumstances
Returns all unused royalty revenue to the Treasury after
the completion of the second fiscal year
Clarifies authority of laboratories, agencies, or
departments to donate excess scientific equipment by gift,
loan, or lease to public and private schools and nonprofit
institutions
Effect upon Federal scientist/inventory under the act
Provides the inventor with the first $2,000, and
thereafter, at least 15% of the royalties, in each year,
accrued for inventions made by the inventor
Increases individual maximum royalty award to $150,000 per
year
Allows rewards for other lab personnel who substantially
assist in the invention
Restates current law permitting a federal employee to work
on the commercialization of his or her invention
Clarifies that a federal inventor can obtain or retain
title to his or her invention in the event the government
chooses not to pursue it
Administrative and management provisions affecting the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Provides authority for a shuttle bus service between the
NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland campus and the Shady Grove Metro
subway station for employees to use in their commute to work
Expands the NIST Visiting Committee to 15 members, with the
requirement that 10 members shall be from United States
industry
Increases the cap on postdoctoral fellowships to 60
positions from 40 positions
Makes permanent the NIST Personnel Demonstration Project
Fastener quality act amendments
Amends the Fastener Quality Act (P.L. 101-592), as
recommended by the Fastener Advisory Committee, focusing on
heat mill certification, mixing of like-certified fasteners,
and sale of fasteners with minor nonconformances
Federal use of standards
Restates and clarifies existing authority for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to coordinate
standards and conformity assessment activities in all levels
of government
Codifies Office of Management and Budget (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
section-by-section analysis of h.r. 2196
Section 1. Short title
The Act may be cited as the ``National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995.''
Section 2. Findings
Bringing technology and industrial innovation to the
marketplace is central to the economic, environmental, and
social well-being of the country. The federal government can
help United States businesses speed the development of new
products and processes by entering into a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with private
sector businesses. A CRADA arrangement makes available the
assistance of federal laboratories to the private sector.
However, the successful commercialization of technology and
industrial innovation is predominantly dependent on actions
taken by the private sector. This commercialization 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 this
cooperative research with federal laboratory scientists.
Section 3. Use of Federal technology
Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology innovation Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-480) to continue participation in the Federal
Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer by all federal
agencies with major federal laboratories.
Section 4. Title to intellectual property arising from
cooperative research and development agreements
Guarantees an industrial partner to a joint Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) the option to
choose, at minimum, an exclusive license for a pre-negotiated
field of use to the resulting invention. Reiterates
government's right to use the invention for its legitimate
needs, but requires the obligation to protect from public
disclosure any information classified as privileged or
confidential under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
In exceptional circumstances, provides that when the
laboratory assigns ownership or an exclusive license to the
industry partner, licensing to others may be required if
needed to satisfy compelling public health, safety or
regulatory concerns. In such rare circumstances, the industry
partner would have administrative appeal and judicial review,
similar to the Bayh-Dole Act. (P.L. 96-517) Also, clarifies
current law defining the contributions laboratories can make
in the CRADA. Permits agencies to use royalties in hiring
temporary personnel to assist in the CRADA or related
projects. Enumerates how a government-owned, government-
operated (GOGO) laboratory and a government-owned,
contractor-operated (GOCO) laboratory may use resulting
royalties.
Section 5. Distribution of income from intellectual property
received by Federal laboratories
Requires that agencies must pay federal inventors each year
the first $2,000 and thereafter at least 15% of the royalties
received by the agency for the inventions made by the
employee. Increases an inventor's maximum royalty award to
$150,000 per year. Allows for rewarding other laboratory
personnel involved in the project, permits agencies to pay
for related administrative and legal costs, and provides a
significant new incentive by allowing the laboratory to use
royalties for related research in the laboratory. Provides
for federal laboratories to return all unobligated and
unexpended royalty revenue to the Treasury after the end of
the second fiscal year after the year which the royalties
were earned.
Section 6. Employee activities
Clarifies the original congressional intent that rights to
inventions should be offered to employees when the agency is
not pursuing them. Permits a federal scientists, or a former
laboratory employee, in the event that the federal government
chooses not to pursue the right of ownership to his or her
invention or otherwise promote its commercialization, to
obtain or retain title to the invention for the purposes of
commercialization.
Section 7. Amendment to Bayh-Dole Act
Reflects technical changes made by this Act as it affects
the Bayh-Dole Act. (P.L. 96-517)
Section 8. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
amendments
Provides authority for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) to have a shuttle bus service between
its Gaithersburg, Maryland campus and the Shady Grove Metro
subway station for employees to use in their commute to work.
Expands the NIST Visiting Committee from 9 members to 15,
with the requirement that 10 members, increased from 5, shall
be from United States industry. Increases the cap of
postdoctoral fellowship from a maximum of 40 to 60 positions
per fiscal year.
Section 9. Research equipment
Clarifies that a laboratory, agency, or department can
donate, loan, or lease excess scientific equipment to public
and private schools and nonprofit institutions.
Section 10. Personnel
Makes permanent the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Personnel Demonstration Project. The
project has helped NIST recruit and retain the ``best and
brightest'' scientists to meet its scientific research and
measurement standards mission.
Section 11. Fastner Quality Act amendments
Amends the Fastner Quality Act (P.L. 101-592), as
recommended by the Fastner Advisory Committee, focusing on
heat mill certification, mixing of like-certified fastners,
and sale of fastners with minor non-conformance. The Fastner
Advisory Committee reported that, without these recommended
changes, the cumulative burden of compliance costs would be
close to $1 billion on the fastner industry.
Section 12. Standards conformity
Restates existing authorities for National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) activities in standards and
conformity assessment. 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. 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.
Section 13. Sense of Congress
Provides that it is the sense of Congress that the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Awards program offers substantial
benefits to United States industry, and that all funds
appropriated for the program should be spent in support of
its goals.
____
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Summary of Senate Amendment to H.R. 2196
On February 7, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
agreed to an amendment to H.R. 2196 offered by Senator Dole
of Kansas, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia
and Senator Burns of Montana. The House had passed H.R. 2196
on December 12, 1995.
The Senate-passed amendment was negotiated in conjunction
with the House sponsors of H.R. 2196 and had been agreed to
by all parties before its Senate consideration. The amendment
clarifies the existing bill language and meets with the
original intent of H.R. 2196, as passed by the House.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 2196 contains the following
seven provisions:
[[Page H1265]]
1. Section 4. Clarifies that the field of use for which a
collaborating party may receive an exclusive license is a
pre-negotiated field of use. While the House report language
was clear that the field of use should be pre-negotiated,
this clarification was inserted into the bill language.
2. Section 4. Clarifies that the Government ``march-in''
rights which may require the holder of an exclusive
technology to share that technology with others will only be
exercised ``in exceptional circumstances.'' Once again, this
clarification met with the intent of the House report
language.
3. Section 4. Regarding the above-mentioned ``exceptional
circumstances'' when Government requires the holder of an
exclusive technology to share that technology with others,
inserts identical language regarding administrative appeal
and judicial review language from the Bayh-Dole Act [35 Sec.
203(2)]--another federal patent law. This language would
ensure that in the very remote eventuality of such a
Government action, the private-sector collaborating party to
a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) will
be ensured the right of due process and appeal. This
provision of H.R. 2196 would mirror the Bayh-Dole Act (P.L.
96-517).
4. Section 9. partially deletes provisions expressly
waiving all federal disposal laws regarding the donation,
loan, or lease of excess laboratory equipment.
5. Section 12. Clarifies the role of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) in coordinating government
standards activities and corrects a small, minor drafting
error. Restates the original intent that NIST is to
coordinate with private sector standards activities to
require government to sue industry-led standards, not
federally-created standards.
6. Section 12. Changes the date on which a NIST report is
required from January 1, 1996 to ``within 90 days of the date
of enactment'' of H.R. 2196.
7. Section 12. Restates original language in the bill
clarifying OMB Circular A-119, which directs federal agencies
to use, to the extent practicable, technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary, private-sector,
industry-led standards organizations. The language was
reworked to meet the Senators' concern and yet remain
faithful to both the original intent of the bill and OMB
Circular A-119 to move the federal government to purchase
commercial products in order to reduce costs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
I want to thank Mrs. Morella for bringing this bill to the floor and
say that it has been a pleasure working with her on this legislation.
H.R. 2196 is the first significant update of Federal technology
transfer laws in almost 7 years. H.R. 2196 builds on the experience of
the Federal labs in developing partnerships with industry and is an
important step in strengthening private-public partnerships for
technology development.
At a time when the pressures of the market and Wall Street are
causing American companies to focus on short-term profits, government-
industry partnerships allow them the chance to develop the high-risk,
long-term technologies that are vital for our future economic well-
being.
We have reviewed the seven amendments the Senate made to the original
text and they are perfectly acceptable. Some of the amendments were
added for Senate jurisdictional reasons and others were requested by
the executive branch.
A number of Members from both parties spoke in favor of H.R. 2196
when it passed the House in early December--no one spoke in opposition
to this legislation. Therefore, I will not review in detail the merits
and provisions of this bill again today.
Since the amendments to this bill are minor, and the bill as amended
makes important strides forward for technology transfer at the Federal
laboratories, in standards policy and for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to commend the ranking member of our
subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], for the work
he has done and the support he has given to this bill, and all of the
others who are the sponsors of the bill and strongly support it. It is
an important measure. It has been long in coming.
Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the staff on both sides of
the aisle. I want to particularly thank Ben Wu of my staff, who has
worked very diligently through the years on this bill, and Mike Quear
on the minority side, who has worked on it. In addition, I would thank
Jim Turner and Dough Comer.
general leave
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 2196.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank very much my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], a
member of the Committee on Science, and to acknowledge the work of the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. She has always had a
longstanding interest in this area, along with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], our chairman, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], our ranking member.
I rise to support H.R. 2196. It has some very vital points. I have
always said as we debated the funding for NASA, the space station, and
as we debated funding of many of the science projects, particularly the
Department of Commerce's advanced technology program, that technology
and science is in fact the work creator of the 21st century. I think
with H.R. 2196, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has parted
the waters of confusion around technology. What we have created is an
even hand between Government and commercial entities with respect to
the rights to intellectual property.
One of the features I find very attractive is the awarding to Federal
inventors $2,000 in royalties, and of course if there is more, 15
percent above that. What an incentive to applaud and encourage the
scientists that we have, the talented scientists that we have in our
labs around this Nation. Might I add as well one of the major points of
creating more opportunities is to educate those who are interested in
the higher sciences, if you will. I applaud the bill proponent for
increasing the number of doctoral fellowships within the National
Institutes of Standards and Technology to help educate the scientists,
engineers and inventors of tommorow. Mr. Speaker, I also realize many
times in our hearings the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has
expressed her interest and concern about girls and women in the
sciences. I think that this is a very excellent opportunity to open the
doors even more to those populations as we proceed towards the 21st
century.
Might I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland to have her respond,
that in fact as we make this more palatable for our scientists, that we
also open the doors of opportunity for women and minorities as well in
the sciences.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we do. We know as we
approach the new millennium two-thirds of the new work force will be
women and minorities. These are resources we must utilize, and in fact
this technology transfer bill will help to move us in that direction.
{time} 1430
I believe in a paraphrase of the 23rd Psalm. My rod and my staff,
they comfort me; prepare the papers before me in the presence of my
constituents. And I wanted to make sure that I also gave credit to
staff who helped, Doug Comer on this side as well as Jim Turner on the
other side of the aisle.
I thank the gentlewoman for opportunity of allowing me to make that
commendation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will conclude by remarks, Mr. Speaker, by
saying I rise to support this legislation which will create the work of
the 21st century and be a bipartisan effort to enhance technology and
science in this Nation.
[[Page H1266]]
In this era of strident partisan politics, I am pleased to see
efforts such as H.R. 2169, the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act before the House today. I congratulate Representative
Morella for crafting legislation which recognizes the importance of
cooperation between the Federal and private sectors in developing new
commercial technologies, products, and processes. Our national
laboratories are world leaders and it is only common sense to harness
their great abilities in pursuit of assisting and advancing the U.S.
industry in the fiercely competitive global economy.
Under this bill, everyone wins: the private sector gets the rights to
cutting-edge technology, the Federal Government receives royalty
payments which may be used to fuel the fires of innovation and finally,
the inventors and project scientists receive royalty compensation for
their hard work.
In addition to these things, this bill provides for increasing the
number of postdoctoral fellowships within the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to help educate the scientists, engineers, and
inventors of tomorrow. Adding these fellowships will cost the
Government money, but I believe that money is the wisest investment we
can make to help ensure the ability of our Nation to compete and
prosper in the years to come.
I have voted in favor of this bill in committee and on this floor and
as a supporter of everything this bill represents, I intend to do it
yet again.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate
version of H.R. 2196 and urge its acceptance by the House of
Representatives.
The Senate made seven amendments to the House-passed text of H.R.
2196. Some are minor and were added for Senate jurisdictional reasons.
Others were requested by the executive branch to make implementation of
this statute easier for the agencies involved. While there may be
grounds of minor quibbles with what the Senate has done, we should
accept its offer since it is not often that they offer us 99 percent of
the loaf.
Three of the Senate amendments are to section 4 of H.R. 2196 which
updates intellectual property rights under cooperative research and
development agreements. Section 4 provides collaborating parties with
the option to an exclusive license for a field of use for any such
invention made pursuant to a CRADA and retains in the government a very
limited right to compel licensing of these inventions for health and
safety and other emergency reasons. The first Senate amendment makes it
clear that a laboratory and its collaborating parties are to agree upon
the scope of the field of use for inventions at the time they enter the
CRADA agreement. Since the House legislative history was already clear
on this matter, this amendment is simply clarifying in nature. The
second and third amendments make it clear that the Government may
compel a license to an invention made under a CRADA only in exceptional
circumstances and that such a decision will be subject to the Bayh-Dole
Act's administrative and judicial review provisions. These changes are
also largely clarifying in nature and modify a statutory authority
which has never been used.
The fourth amendment changes the provision in section 9 of H.R. 2196
which was designed to clarify the current Stevenson-Wydler Act section
which permits Federal laboratories to transfer surplus equipment to
educational institutions. There have been varying interpretations among
the Federal agencies as to whether that section permits the loan of
equipment by laboratories to schools and as to how the Stevenson-Wydler
Act relates to the Federal property disposal law. I can say with
certainty that this committee wrote the original provision as an
alternative rather than as a supplement to Federal law for disposal of
surplus laboratory equipment. We wrote the original provision after
hearing from laboratories with equipment of no further use to them, who
knew of schools that badly wanted the equipment. Yet because of the
cumbersome nature of the Federal property disposal procedures, the
equipment was gathering dust in the labs. The Stevenson-Wydler Act
language was written as a simple, straightforward way to get this
equipment back into the hands of those who could use it for the public
good. Our amendment reinforced the original Stevenson-Wydler language
by stating unambiguously that surplus Federal laboratory equipment can
be lent, leased, or given to schools without going through Federal
requirements on the disposal of property. The Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, which has Senate legislative jurisdiction over the
General Services Administration, did not want a reference to Federal
requirements on the disposal of property in a bill coming out of the
Senate Commerce Committee. As a courtesy, the Senate Commerce Committee
complied with their request to drop the reference. However, we wish to
make clear that the dropping of this reference does not change the
effect of this section. The Stevenson-Wydler Act scientific equipment
transfer procedure remains a free-standing alternative to the Federal
Property Act for this limited class of property. Under rules of
statutory interpretation, the Stevenson-Wydler surplus property
provision will continue to take precedence over the general Federal
property disposal statute with reference to laboratory equipment both
because it is the later enactment and because it is the more specific
provision.
The fifth and sixth amendments are both technical and conforming
amendments to section 12 dealing with standards conformity. In the
fifth amendment, the Senate rewrites our language on coordination of
standards to match exactly the House intent of bringing efficiency to
conformity assessment by having government and industry coordinate
their efforts. The sixth amendment is made necessary by delays in the
enactment of this legislation. The House version of this section
required submission of a report to the Congress by January 1, 1996, a
date which has now passed. We, therefore, accept the Senate's decision
to delay the reporting date until 90 days after the date of enactment
of this act.
The final Senate amendment rewrites the paragraphs of this bill that
sought to codify OMB Circular A-119, which requires Federal agencies to
utilize voluntary consensus standards. While both the House and the
Senate language share the same intent, the Senate language is more
straightforward and unambiguous and therefore should be adopted.
Currently, OMB Circular A-119 asks Federal agencies to utilize national
consensus standards for procurement and regulatory purposes. This is
because these standards are developed with great care and expertise in
an open, democratic manner which makes U.S. voluntary standards the
envy of the world. It is much cheaper and more efficient for the
Government to rely on the hard work and expertise of these committees
rather than reinventing the world. These groups are better equipped
than the Government to understand all points of view and to keep up
with the state of the art in technical standards. This section in both
the House and Senate versions does not transfer public sector
decisionmaking or regulatory authority to the private sector. It merely
tells the Government that in its regulatory, procurement, and other
activities that rest on technical standards pertaining to products and
processes, that the Government is expected, wherever it makes sense,
not to duplicate private sector technical standards activities.
Instead, Federal agencies are to participate in and use the good work
of the voluntary, consensus standards community. In those limited
instances when an agency has a good reason not to use a voluntary
consensus technical standard, it has the right to do so, provided that
its agency head transmits its reasoning to the Office of Management and
Budget and that a summary of such explanations are submitted annually
to the Congress. As I said when this bill originally passed the House,
we expect OMB to make this process as painless as possible for the
agencies and to set up procedures to implement this section in such a
way that procurements and regulations are not delayed. While agencies
are expected to keep good records of this reasons for not using the
standards, such a decision is not to be subject to administrative or
judicial review.
Therefore, since the changes we are being asked to make are small and
in general positive, and since the bill as amended still makes
important stride forward for NIST, for the Federal laboratories, and in
standards policy, I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this
important legislation.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this bill will create more jobs, provide
incentives for important scientific inventions, and make it easier to
give or loan Federal equipment to our schools.
THis measure makes economic and political sense. That is precisely
the reasons why I support this legislation today, just as I did when it
came to the House floor in December.
H.R. 2196--the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995--is an effective mechanism for stimulating greater
commercialization of the research being done at the National
Laboratories, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory [LANL] located
in my district.
H.R. 2196 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 of LANL. The set-aside has
provided 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 which
other Federal Laboratories have expertise in specific areas.
[[Page H1267]]
For example, if an agriculturally oriented business in New Mexico
went to the technology transfer officers at LANL with a problem, Los
Alamos would be able to find out if any of the laboratories in the
Departments of Agriculture or Interior, for instance, 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
a year. By changing the calculations so that agencies pay inventors the
first $2,000 of the royalties received by the agency for the inventions
made by the employee as well as 15 percent of the royalties above that
amount, the bill provides these employees with greater incentives and
equitable compensation.
Finally, H.R. 2196 clarifies that a Federal laboratory, agency, or
department may give, loan, or lease excess scientific equipment to
public and private schools and non-profit organizations without regard
to Federal property disposal laws, for example, General Services
Administration [GSA].
Therefore, if LANL wanted to donate unused equipment to a New Mexico
school, it would not have to go through the bureaucratic red tape that
is now required. Some Labs would rather store their unwanted equipment
rather than going through the hassle of GSA disposal.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2196 is a bill of importance to the Federal
Laboratories. It advocates technology transfer, creates an incentive
for Federal inventors, and makes it easier to donate equipment to needy
schools. The Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 is good
legislation.
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 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.
I especially wish to applaud the chairwoman for her bipartisan
leadership on this bill and in her efforts to promote effective
technology transfer from our Federal laboratories. H.R. 2196 represents
the type of legislation which this new Congress must undertake.
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. The Fastener Advisory Committee was formed 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.
The act addresses the concerns of the Fastener Advisory Committee
regarding mill heat certification, mixing of like certified fasteners,
and sale of minor nonconformances.
Working with this Congress and NIST, the Fastener Public Law Task
Force, comprised of members from manufacturing, importing, and
distributing, has worked to improve 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 urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2196.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that most provisions of H.R.
2196 have been discussed and negotiated in a bipartisan fashion by
Members of both bodies. Far too little effort during this Congress has
been expended toward meaningful bipartisan legislative action and, for
that significant accomplishment, I applaud the sponsors of this
measure.
However, I am compelled to state for the record, as I have in the
past, my concerns about portions of this bill that amend the Fastener
Quality Act. As noted most recently in my December 12, 1995 statement,
some of the fastener amendments included in this legislation appear to
be designed to appease foreign manufacturers of fasteners (and some
distributors who sell such foreign fasteners) rather than to protect
the safety of American industry and consumers.
No hearings have been held on the need for some of the fastener
provisions in this bill nor has any credible justification been
advanced for their inclusion in this legislation. For example, the only
reason cited for amending the Fastener Quality Act's traceability
provisions (which Chairman Walker favorably cited in his statement
supporting the original legislation) is the supposedly excessive cost
that would be imposed on businesses. A few distributors and foreign
manufacturers--that is, those who profit from making and selling
counterfeit and substandard fasteners--have produced wildly exaggerated
figures to back up their claim that the original act's limited
commingling prohibition will be the death knell for the fastener
industry.
While foreign manufacturers and some fastener distributors have spent
millions of dollars lobbying for these and other legislative changes to
the Fastener Quality Act, other American companies simply rolled up
their sleeves and went to work to ensure that adequate traceability
procedures exist, including compliance with the original act's
commingling provisions. These companies have told us something
completely different than what the foreign manufacturers and their
distributor chums have said. They tell us that the limited commingling
requirements are necessary to provide better traceability of fasteners.
And they also tell us the costs of putting these requirements into
practice are minimal. Obviously, someone is wrong.
There is much huffing and puffing these days about the need to
promote quality in all aspects of American business and government.
Yet, some of the fastener amendments in this bill do just the opposite.
It is a fact that the best American manufacturing and distribution
companies have for many years maintained sophisticated lot control and
traceability procedures for a wide array of products, including
pharmaceuticals, hardware, food, and soft drinks. Yet, due to heavy
lobbying by foreign fastener manufacturers and their sellers,
amendments in this bill weaken quality standards and make it easier for
counterfeit and substandard fasteners to make their way into American
commerce and into American products.
During the multiyear investigation by the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on fasteners, it was demonstrated that the most
serious problems with counterfeit and substandard fasteners originated
beyond our borders. The motive for making and selling such fasteners is
obvious--to cut production costs and increase profits. In weakening the
law today, we help makers and sellers of bad fasteners and, in the
process, hurt those companies that produce quality products.
At least, enactment of these amendments should lead to promulgation
of the long overdue implementing regulations by the National Institute
on Standards and Technology. Despite its failure to do so during this
Congress and in prior years, I would hope that NIST keep us fully
apprised of its efforts to implement and enforce the Fastener Quality
Act and that it act aggressively to finalize all implementing
regulations as quickly as possible.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would
like to thank our staff folks who have helped put this together and
thank the gentlewoman from Maryland again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R.
2196.
The question was taken.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________