[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5424-H5428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMERCIALIZATION ACT OF 1998
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2544) to improve the ability of Federal agencies to
license federally owned inventions, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2544
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Section 12(b)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``or, subject to section 209 of title 35, United
States Code, may grant a license to an invention which is
federally owned, made before the granting of the license, and
directly related to the scope of the work under the
agreement,'' after ``under the agreement,''.
SEC. 3. LICENSING FEDERALLY OWNED INVENTIONS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 209 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 209. Licensing federally owned inventions
``(a) Authority.--A Federal agency may grant an exclusive
or partially exclusive license on a federally owned invention
only if--
``(1) granting the license is a reasonable and necessary
incentive to--
``(A) call forth the investment capital and expenditures
needed to bring the invention to practical application; or
``(B) otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the
public;
``(2) the Federal agency finds that the public will be
served by the granting of the license, as indicated by the
applicant's intentions, plans, and ability to bring the
invention to practical application or otherwise promote the
invention's utilization by the public, and that the proposed
scope of exclusivity is not greater than reasonably necessary
to provide the incentive for bringing the invention to
practical utilization, as proposed by the applicant, or
otherwise to promote the invention's utilization by the
public;
``(3) the applicant makes a commitment to achieve practical
utilization of the invention within a reasonable time;
``(4) granting the license will not tend to substantially
lessen competition or create or maintain a violation of the
Federal antitrust laws; and
``(5) in the case of an invention covered by a foreign
patent application or patent, the interests of the Federal
Government or United States industry in foreign commerce will
be enhanced.
``(b) Manufacture in United States.--A Federal agency shall
normally grant a license to use or sell any federally owned
invention in the United States only to a licensee who agrees
that any products embodying the invention or produced through
the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially
in the United States.
``(c) Small Business.--First preference for the granting of
any exclusive or partially exclusive licenses under this
section shall be given to small business firms having equal
or greater likelihood as other applicants to bring the
invention to practical application within a reasonable time.
``(d) Terms and Conditions.--Licenses granted under this
section shall contain such terms and conditions as the
granting agency considers appropriate. Such terms and
conditions shall include provisions--
``(1) retaining a nontransferrable, irrevocable, paid-up
license for the Federal agency to practice the invention or
have the invention practiced throughout the world by or on
behalf of the Government of the United States;
``(2) requiring periodic reporting on utilization of the
invention, and utilization efforts, by the licensee, but only
to the extent necessary to enable the Federal agency to
determine whether the terms of the license are being complied
with; and
``(3) empowering the Federal agency to terminate the
license in whole or in part if the agency determines that--
``(A) the licensee is not executing its commitment to
achieve practical utilization of the invention, including
commitments contained in any plan submitted in support of its
request for a license, and the licensee cannot otherwise
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Federal agency that it
has taken, or can be expected to take within a reasonable
time, effective steps to achieve practical utilization of the
invention;
``(B) the licensee is in breach of an agreement described
in subsection (b);
``(C) termination is necessary to meet requirements for
public use specified by Federal regulations issued after the
date of the license, and such requirements are not reasonably
satisfied by the licensee; or
``(D) the licensee has been found by a competent authority
to have violated the Federal antitrust laws in connection
with its performance under the license agreement.
``(e) Public Notice.--No exclusive or partially exclusive
license may be granted under this section unless public
notice of the intention to grant an exclusive or partially
exclusive license on a federally owned invention has been
provided in an appropriate manner at least 15 days before the
license is granted, and the Federal agency has considered all
comments received in response to that public notice. This
subsection shall not apply to the licensing of inventions
made under a cooperative research and development agreement
entered into under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a).
``(f) Basic Business Plan.--A Federal agency may grant a
license on a federally owned invention only if the person
requesting the license has supplied to the agency a basic
business plan with development milestones, commercialization
milestones, or both.
``(g) Nondisclosure of Certain Information.--Any basic
business plan, and revisions thereto, submitted by an
applicant for a license, and any report on the utilization or
utilization efforts of a licensed invention submitted by a
licensee, shall be treated by the Federal agency as
commercial and financial information obtained from a person
and not subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 209
in the table of sections for chapter 18 of title 35, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``209. Licensing federally owned inventions.''.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO BAYH-DOLE ACT.
Chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (popularly known
as the ``Bayh-Dole Act''), is amended--
(1) by amending section 202(e) to read as follows:
``(e) In any case when a Federal employee is a coinventor
of any invention made under a funding agreement with a
nonprofit organization or small business firm, the Federal
agency employing such coinventor may, for the purpose of
consolidating rights in the invention--
``(1) license or assign whatever rights it may acquire in
the subject invention from its employee to the nonprofit
organization or small business firm; or
``(2) acquire any rights in the subject invention, but only
to the extent the party from whom the rights are acquired
voluntarily enters into the transaction.''; and
(2) in section 207(a)--
(A) by striking ``patent applications, patents, or other
forms of protection obtained'' and inserting ``inventions''
in paragraph (2); and
(B) by inserting ``, including acquiring rights for the
Federal Government in any invention, but only to the extent
the party from whom the rights are acquired voluntarily
enters into the transaction, to facilitate the licensing of a
federally owned invention'' after ``or through contract'' in
paragraph (3).
SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STEVENSON-WYDLER
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980.
Section 14(a)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710c(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``, if the
inventor's or coinventor's rights are assigned to the United
States'' after ``inventor or coinventors''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``succeeding fiscal
year'' and inserting ``2 succeeding fiscal years''.
[[Page H5425]]
SEC. 6. REVIEW OF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT PROCEDURES.
(a) Review.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant Federal
agencies, national laboratories, and any other person the
Director considers appropriate, shall review the general
policies and procedures used by Federal agencies to gather
and consider the views of other agencies on--
(1) joint work statements under section 12(c)(5)(C) or (D)
of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15
U.S.C. 3710a(c)(5)(C) or (D)); or
(2) in the case of laboratories described in section
12(d)(2)(A) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(2)(A)), cooperative research and
development agreements under such section 12,
with respect to major proposed cooperative research and
development agreements that involve critical national
security technology or may have a significant impact on
domestic or international competitiveness.
(b) Procedures.--Within one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant Federal
agencies and national laboratories, shall--
(1) determine the adequacy of existing procedures and
methods for interagency coordination and awareness; and
(2) establish and distribute to appropriate Federal
agencies--
(A) specific criteria to indicate the necessity for
gathering and considering the views of other agencies on
joint work statements or cooperative research and development
agreements as described in subsection (a); and
(B) additional procedures, if any, for carrying out such
gathering and considering of agency views.
Procedures established under this subsection shall be
designed to the extent possible to use or modify existing
procedures, to minimize burdens on Federal agencies, to
encourage industrial partnerships with national laboratories,
and to minimize delay in the approval or disapproval of joint
work statements and cooperative research and development
agreements.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Barcia) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in the past two decades, Congress has
established a system to transfer unclassified technology from our
Federal laboratories to the private sector in order to facilitate its
commercialization. This system is designed to ensure U.S. citizens
receive the full benefit from our government's investment in research
and development.
To help further these goals, the Committee on Science first reported
the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. The committee
expanded on that landmark legislation with the passage of the Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986, the National Competitive Technology
Transfer Act of 1989, the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991
and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, among
others.
Technology transfer has resulted in products which are currently
being used to enhance our quality of life. Examples include the AIDS
home testing kit, the global positioning system nautical navigation,
and new materials technology to make automobiles lighter and more fuel-
efficient.
H.R. 2544 continues the Committee on Science's long and rich history
of advancing technology transfer to help boost our Nation's standard of
living. I congratulate the Chair of the Subcommittee on Technology, the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for introducing H.R. 2544,
and for her efforts to work cooperatively with members of the minority
and the administration to craft this bipartisan bill.
I would also like to acknowledge and congratulate the hard work of
the ranking Members from the Committee on Science and Subcommittee on
Technology, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) on this important legislation. Its drafting
and passage by the Committee on Science could not have occurred without
their considerable input and assistance.
The purpose of H.R. 2544 as reported is to promote the transfer and
private sector commercialization of the technology created in our
Nation's system of over 700 Federal laboratories, thereby leveraging
Federal investment in scientific research through increasing
collaboration with the private industry.
Specifically, the bill improves and streamlines the ability of
Federal agencies to license federally-owned inventions. H.R. 2544 does
this by reducing procedural obstacles and, to the greatest extent
possible, the uncertainty involved in the licensing of government-owned
patented inventions.
During the Committee on Science's hearing on this bill, the committee
received testimony from both past and prospective private industry
partners regarding their concerns about current Federal technology
licensing processes.
Witnesses indicated that the strategic advantage of acquiring
intellectual property rights through a cooperative research and
development agreement, called CRADA for short, and/or the licensing of
government-owned technology, are, unfortunately, offset by the delays
and uncertainty often associated with the lengthy Federal technology
transfer process, which is often out of sync with private sector
timing. In addition to the uncertainty of actually being granted the
license, these procedural barriers increase transaction costs and delay
commercialization.
The present regulations also make it difficult for government-owned
and government-operated laboratories, or GOGO for short, to bring
existing scientific inventions into a CRADA, even when inclusion would
create a more complete technology package.
By reducing the delay and uncertainty imposed by existing procedural
barriers and thus lowering transactional costs associated with the
licensing of technology transferred from the Federal laboratories,
Federal agencies could greatly increase participation by the private
sector in their technology transfer programs.
H.R. 2544 does just that. Its approach will expedite the
commercialization of government-owned inventions and reduce the costs
to the American taxpayer for the development of new technology-based
products.
Through H.R. 2544, Federal agencies are provided with two important
new tools for effectively commercializing on-the-shelf government-owned
inventions: First, revised authorities under section 209 of the Bayh-
Dole Act; and, second, the ability to license technology as part of a
CRADA. Both mechanisms make Federal technology transfer programs much
more attractive to U.S. private industries that seek to form
partnerships with the Federal laboratories.
The committee reported H.R. 2544 by voice vote. The bill was
subsequently discharged by the Committee on the Judiciary, to which it
was sequentially referred. I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), for their assistance in bringing H.R. 2544 to the floor.
This bill is yet another important step in refining our Nation's
technology transfer laws to remove existing impediments to advance
government and industry collaboration, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first begin by thanking the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and, of course, the ranking member
the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for bringing H.R. 2544, the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, to the floor. I would like
to especially thank the bill's chief sponsor, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Technology, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), for her continued leadership on this and other important
technology matters.
The goal of H.R. 2544 is to make sure that those innovations owned by
our Federal labs and with commercial potential enter the marketplace as
quickly and efficiently as possible. However, the bill also includes
important protections that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) and I
introduced during our Subcommittee on Technology markup to promote
fairness of opportunity, to increase due diligence on the part of
licenses, and to encourage the creation of American jobs.
[[Page H5426]]
The bill relaxes general notice requirements, but requires public
notice when it matters most, when the granting of an exclusive license
to a Federal invention is contemplated. Giving notice in advance of
awarding an exclusive license is essential to ensure that the public
gets full benefit from its research investment. This will make sure
that every American company, no matter how small, has a chance to make
its case for a license before exclusive rights are awarded. Without
these protections, important innovations can inadvertently be blocked.
Companies, often small businesses previously unknown to Federal
laboratories, have responded to these public notices with revolutionary
ideas that would otherwise have been lost.
{time} 1500
The National Institutes of Health first learned of companies with the
capability to turn NIH innovations into a cystic fibrosis gene therapy
and a cervical cancer vaccine through public notices of the intent to
grant exclusive licenses to someone else. The Department of Agriculture
uncovered important applications of its research, including a novel egg
immunization technology and a way to take formaldehyde out of permanent
press fabrics which could have been blocked without public notice.
Time and time again, public notice of the intent to grant exclusive
licenses has produced dramatic results. The gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), the chairperson of the subcommittee, was absolutely
right in pointing out to the committee that publication in the Federal
Register is probably no longer the most effective method of public
notice in an Internet age. Agencies need to make use of a variety of
modern communication techniques such as electronic mailing lists, the
Internet, and web pages. We encourage agencies to think creatively, to
devise plans for reaching more people during shorter periods of public
notice, and to pass the time savings on to their potential private
sector partners.
Further, as our private sector is ultimately driven by small
business, the licensing of Federal inventions may well be our most
successful and cost-effective program to aid these smaller firms. In
fact, the Department of Defense grants 61 percent of its exclusive
licenses to small businesses, NIST grants 80 percent of licenses to
small businesses, and NASA grants 93 percent of its licenses to small
businesses. This bill ensures that small businesses will continue to be
the focus of technology transfer initiatives far into the future.
Finally, this bill is geared toward American jobs. Federal licensees
are expected to do high quality research and establish manufacturing
jobs right here in the United States of America. In the 1980s, our
committee showed wisdom in requiring a fair share of the jobs coming
out of Federal innovations be located in the U.S. This bill will
continue this important principle into the next century.
Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Technology, under the leadership of
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and our distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as
our distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Brown) have, in a bipartisan manner, invested a large amount of time
and energy in gathering the information necessary to perfect this
legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 1998. First, I would like to commend our
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); the
subcommittee chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella);
and the ranking members of both committees, for their commitment and
leadership on this legislation.
H.R. 2544 will improve the laws promoting technology transfer from
our Nation's Federal laboratories. It will facilitate Federal
technology licensing by streamlining the process and eliminating
burdensome procedural hurdles for American businesses.
As a businessman I know the importance of keeping up with technology
and the necessity of constantly innovating and initiating new ideas in
order to remain competitive. I also understand how difficult it is to
interact with the government. I am pleased that the committee accepted
my pro-business amendments that further knock down some of the
obstacles and concerns of industry when they seek to license technology
from our Federal laboratories.
H.R. 2544 will bolster America's ability to compete internationally
and will help our economy reap the fruits of taxpayer-funded Federal
technology research.
I thank the chairman again for his support of this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), ranking member of the House
Committee on Science.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 20 years we have seen a complete change in
attitude regarding technology transfer, and it has been a change for
the better. In 1979 and in 1980, the House Committee on Science and
Technology, working with some far-thinking individuals in the Carter
administration, the university community and the private sector, came
up with a holistic method of thinking about innovation in this country
and the legislation necessary to back it up.
I am proud to have been a part of the bipartisan group of legislators
who guided these bills, the Bayh-Dole Act and the Stevenson-Wydler Act,
to enactment and who later worked with the Reagan administration to
broaden their scope by extending the Bayh-Dole Act to government-owned,
contractor-operated laboratories and by adding the concept of
cooperative research and development agreements to the Stevenson-Wydler
Act.
When I say bipartisan, my colleagues will all recognize that Senator
Bayh was a leading Democratic Senator from Indiana, and Senator Dole of
course was the later-to-be Republican leader and candidate for
President. Of the Stevenson-Wydler Act, Senator Stevenson was the
junior Senator from Illinois at that time, and Mr. Wydler was the
Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, which I am today, so I am
following in his great footsteps. But the point that I am trying to
make here is that we unabashedly worked together on a bipartisan basis
to enact this type of legislation which was aimed at reaping greater
benefits from our investments in research and development in this
country, and these programs have succeeded.
I should point out that the foundation for most of our current
advanced technology programs was contained in the 1988 Trade Act,
perhaps an odd place for it to be, but it was a separate title of that
trade act which was signed into law by President Reagan and which has
given us some of the new and, unfortunately, at times, controversial
programs which have continued to help ensure our leadership in the
world in terms of continually improving our market share in high
technology products of all kinds.
What were revolutionary ideas in the 1980 and 1986 bills are now the
heart of our Federal laboratory policy. These ideas have been so
successful that practice in some ways has outgrown the original
statute. Rather than having thousands of Federal inventions going
unused, we now see intense competition in the private sector for the
best ideas and need to ensure fairness of opportunity in selecting the
most appropriate licensees, and this is what the legislation before us
attempts to encourage. Instead of Federal researchers meeting their
colleagues from outside the government only in professional meetings,
we now have a culture of cooperative research involving Federal labs
and universities in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important, well-thought-out bill. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
[[Page H5427]]
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois for his kindness and his leadership; the ranking member, the
chairman and the committee for their work.
This is an exciting piece of legislation, and I am delighted to rise
to support the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1997. I
certainly think Senators Bayh and Dole were innovative in 1980 when
their act was first implemented, because it revolutionized the way we
handle patents arising from Federal research. Until their legislation
passed, the Federal Government retained title to all patents arising
from Federal research and granted only nonexclusive licenses to private
parties. This left no room for competitive advantages and what we wound
up with was these 20,000 Federal inventions sitting in laboratories,
underutilized and unused.
As a result of the Bayh-Dole policy, current policy is to get these
inventions out to the private sector, either by licensing government-
developed technology or by letting a university or company who made the
invention with Federal funds have the patent outright. Out of that we
have gotten new medicines and materials and processes, and ideas for
products are flowing.
However, I believe as we move into the information age, we can do
better. We have learned a lot about licensing since 1980, and
therefore, I think it is crucial that this new amendment and
legislation conforms our patent policies to our new sensibilities. It
takes lessons learned over these 18 years as well as the legitimate
concerns of licensees, and streamlining our patenting and licensing
procedures to reflect 21st century realities.
What I really like about it is this is a real dynamic opportunity for
our small businesses. This is a job creation bill, for the small
businesses now will have the first crack, as they have in the past, but
they will have a real opportunity for the licenses and a substantial
portion of the jobs arising from commercializing Federal inventions
will have to be located right here in the United States. I think it is
a match made in heaven.
The small business preference works, because there are so many
innovative technological firms that are small businesses and, in fact,
generate a lot of jobs. This helps them to get right to the source of
opportunity and to create more jobs and to create high technology. In
fact, I understand that over 90 percent of NASA's licenses typically go
to small businesses, many of which reside in my community.
H.R. 2544 also carefully devices ways to make sure that the ideas of
all companies with an interest in commercializing an invention are
considered before rights are awarded. H.R. 2544 also makes crucial
adjustments to CRADA, a process by which companies can do joint
research with the Federal laboratories. Again, here is another
opportunity where there is joint venturing and partnerships between our
Federal laboratories.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a bill for the 21st century.
I am very proud to support this bill as well as on behalf of our small
businesses in America, and technology.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 1997. This bill is important to me for a
number of reasons. It strengthens a program of great importance to
small business, and it is key to helping U.S. companies harvest the
bountiful ideas of Federal laboratories.
This bill amends the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which revolutionized the
way we handle patents arising from Federal research. Until Bayh-Dole
passed, the Federal government retained title to all the patents
arising from Federal research and granted only non-exclusive licenses
to private parties. This policy left no room for competitive advantages
and led to 20,000 Federal inventions sitting in laboratories
underutilized and unused.
As a result of Bayh-Dole, current policy is to get these inventions
out to the private sector either by licensing government-developed
technology, or by letting the university or company who made the
invention with Federal funds have the patent outright. New medicines,
materials, processes, and ideas for products are flowing from the
government to the private sector as never before.
But we can do better. We have learned much about licensing since
1980. Businesses have also changed dramatically in this period. Product
marketing and quality is much better now. There has been a
communications revolution and business decisions must be made very
quickly. Today's high-technology businesses simply do not have the time
to produce mounds of paperwork and wait months to license a Federal
invention.
H.R. 2544 conforms our patent policies to our new sensibilities. It
takes the lessons learned over these 18 years as well as the legitimate
concerns of licensees, and streamlines our patent licensing procedures
to reflect 21st century realities.
This bill also preserves what is good about Bayh-Dole. Small
businesses still will have first crack at the licenses, and a
substantial portion of the jobs arising from commercializing Federal
inventions will have to be located right here in the United States.
This is a small business preference that works. I understand that over
90% of NASA's licenses typically go to small businesses, many of which
reside in my district. H.R. 2544 also carefully devises ways to make
sure that the ideas of all companies with an interest in
commercializing an invention are considered before rights are awarded.
H.R. 2544 also makes crucial adjustments to the CRADA process by
which companies can do joint research with the Federal laboratories. It
retains all of the provisions which permit small businesses easy access
to federal laboratories, but it also sets up a careful review of those
CRADAs that are large enough or prominent enough to raise national
security, antitrust, or international competitiveness issues.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents hard and fruitful work on the part
of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and from the
Administration. I urge all of you to support this important
legislation. Thank you.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers on our side, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades, Congress and the
Science Committee has encouraged the transfer to United States private
industry of unclassified technology created in our federal
laboratories.
As a result of these technology transfer laws, the ability of the
United States to compete globally has been strengthened and a new
paradigm for greater collaboration among the scientific enterprises
that conduct our Nation's research and development--government,
industry, and universities--has been developed. By permitting effective
collaboration between our Federal laboratories and private industry,
new technologies can be rapidly commercialized.
Federal technology transfer stimulates the American economy, enhances
the competitive position of United States industry internationally, and
promotes the development and use of new technologies developed under
taxpayer funded research so those innovations are incorporated rapidly
and effectively into practice to the benefit of the American public.
Our Federal laboratories have long been considered one of our
greatest scientific research and development resources, employing one
of every six scientists in the country and encompassing one-fifth of
the country's laboratory and equipment capabilities. Effectively
capturing this wealth of ideas and technology from our federal
laboratories, through the transfer to private industry for
commercialization, has helped to bolster our Nation's ability to
compete in the global marketplace.
Given the importance and benefits of technology transfer, the
Technology Subcommittee has continued to refine the technology transfer
process to facilitate greater government, university, and industry
collaboration. In the past Congress, we enhanced and simplified the
process for Cooperative Research and Development Agreements through a
bill which I introduced, the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (P.L. 104-113).
With the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, we have now
attempted to remove the obstacles to effectively license federally-
owned inventions which are created in government-owned, government-
operated laboratories, by adopting the successful Bayh-Dole Act as a
framework.
Under the bill, agencies would be provided with two important new
tools for effectively commercializing on-the-shelf federally owned
technologies--either licensing them as stand-alone inventions, under
the bill's revised authorities of Section 209 of the Bayh-Dole Act, or
by including them as part of a larger package under a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement. In doing so, this will make both
mechanisms much more attractive to United States companies that are
striving to form partnerships with federal laboratories.
In the Technology Subcommittee's two legislative hearings on H.R.
2544, witnesses enthusiastically endorsed the bill's intent to
streamline technology licensing to make it more effective. We heard
from the Administration, large corporations, small businesses, federal
laboratories, and technology transfer organizations, among others, that
the bill will
[[Page H5428]]
substantially improve the process of licensing federal technology for
commercial applications and make it more attractive for industry to
partner with government.
The bill before us represents a bipartisan consensus. I am pleased
that we have worked closely with the members of the Minority in
revising the bill since it was originally introduced. I would also like
to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Science Committee, Mr.
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown, as well as the Ranking Member of the
Technology Subcommittee, Mr. Barcia, for their support of H.R. 2544.
I look forward to working with them and my Senate counterparts to
have this bill signed into law before the conclusion of the 105th
Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to pass this important measure.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2544, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________