[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.

                          ____________________