[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1079-S1082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 259. A bill to authorize funding the Department of Energy to 
enhance its mission areas through Technology Transfer and Partnerships 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for technology transfer. 
This bi-partisan bill which is referred to as the ``National 
Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001'' is co-sponsored by 
my colleagues Mr. Domenici and Mrs. Murray. Let me summarize this bill. 
First, I will outline the Department's commitment to science and how it 
has admirably worked to transfer its technology in light of a serious 
resource decline. I then will discuss how tech transfer naturally 
compliments the Department's mission oriented R&D. I will review the 
legislation we introduced in the last session which is a start in the 
right direction. I will conclude by proposing how this bill by 
leveraging existing efforts, should move the Department in the right 
direction to support technology transfer without disrupting its R&D 
mission focus.
  The Department of Energy is about science. For FY 2001, the 
Department's R&D budget was roughly $8 billion out of the $18.3 billion 
appropriated. Science programs account for 43 percent of the 
Department's budget. In the area of the physical sciences, DOE provides 
roughly half of all of the federal R&D. In mathematics and computer 
sciences, DOE is second after the DOD. In engineering, the DOE ranks 
third after NASA and the DOD. DOE affiliated scientists have won more 
than 71 Nobel prizes for fundamental research; they garner the largest 
number of R&D 100 awards for applied research. The Department has more 
than 60 multipurpose laboratories and primary purpose facilities across 
the U.S. in high energy physics, materials science, nuclear science and 
engineering, waste management, biosciences, robotics, advanced 
scientific computing, microelectronic and nanomaterials fabrication. 
Each year DOE labs and facilities are used by more than 18,000 
researchers from universities and industry.
  Yet with this surprising portfolio of research, the Department in FY 
2001 only line allocates $10 million for the transfer of technology. In 
1995 this allocation was over $200 million. That is not to say DOE is 
not transferring its technology. In FY 1998, which is our last set of 
good statistics from the Department of Commerce's Office of Technology 
Policy, the DOE was second only to the DOD in the number of CRADA's 
granted from its federal facilities, the DOD had 1424 and the DOE had 
868. The in-kind funds from industry to DOE for these CRADA's averages 
about $100 million while its work for others from non-federal sources 
was $145 million. In FY 1998, the DOE had 168 licenses granted to use 
its technology, the DOD had 34 and HHS had 215. In FY 1998, the DOE had 
512 patents issued on federal lab inventions while the DOD had 579, the 
next closest was HHS with 171. In FY 1998, 50 companies were 
established as a result of DOE technology transfer. To put these 
numbers in perspective, the DOD R&D budget for FY 1998 was $37.5 
billion, HHS' was $13.8 billion, while DOE's was $6.3 billion. These 
statistics are impressive because in FY 1998 the DOE had line allocated 
about 1 percent of its R&D budget to tech transfer. Today, that number 
is 0.14 percent of its R&D budget.
  Given that tech transfer is not the Department's primary mission, the 
question is what is the right mix and what is the optimal technology to 
transfer? For the NNSA, the primary mission is ensuring a safe and 
reliable nuclear stockpile. The Office of Science's primary mission is 
advancing the frontiers of basic R&D. The Office of Environmental 
Management's primary mission is cleaning up contaminated DOE sites. The 
Fossil Energy Program's mission is developing cleaner and more 
efficient fossil fuels. The list goes on. Nor do I think that tech 
transfer, given the above numbers will be the principal engine for 
direct economic growth in the tech heavy new economy. Let me explain 
this premise by examing the pattern of economic and technological 
growth in a little more detail. In the year 2000, the National Science 
Foundation estimates that total U.S. R&D was $264 billion, a 7.9 
percent increase over 1999 which itself was a 7.5 percent increase over 
1998. Technology R&D has a growth rate exceeding 15 percent in the last 
two years alone. What counts is the make up of these R&D trends. In the 
year 2000, the industry contribution to the total R&D was $179 billion, 
a 10.3 percent increase over 1999 while federal R&D grew by only 3.9 
percent. Given the investment the federal government makes in R&D, 
technology transfer from federal labs does not contribute directly to 
these amazing growth rates. In industries like telecommunications and 
chip design, the turn around cycles from research to product ranges 
from 1 to 3 years. The government is simply too slow to contribute 
directly to industrial driven short term needs that are so clearly 
evident in these national trends of R&D funding. On the other end of 
the spectrum, basic and applied R&D are areas where industry finds it 
difficult to invest given the short term equity demands on their 
profits. The right mix then is for the government to maintain basic and 
applied R&D so it can transfer this knowledge to industry over the long 
term.
  If we agree that the government best transfers long term R&D we must 
ask the next question which is how do the Department's mission focused 
R&D programs transfer technology to the private sector and how can the 
Department ensure its continued success with minimal disruption to its 
mission areas? Mission focused DOE programs like the NNSA, 
Environmental Management, Fossil Energy, Renewable Energy, Nuclear 
Energy and the Office of Science all advance the frontiers of science 
at different stages. All of these programs in carrying out their 
missions naturally perform different degrees of tech transfer. The 
Fossil Energy, Nuclear and Renewable programs work closely with 
industry and usually cannot start without an industry partner through a 
CRADA. The NNSA with their advanced computing requirements naturally 
push the state of the art in industry. CRADA's and Licenses provide to 
the NNSA a fresh influx of the outside world's advancing technology 
into their national security

[[Page S1080]]

missions. The Office of Science with their wonderful user facilities 
and broad basic energy research mandate provide a fertile R&D base by 
which industry can stay competitive ten years out into the future, 
CRADA's smooth and shorten that transition. CRADA arrangements are a 
natural outgrowth of the DOE mission programs. A CRADA or License 
simply makes the tech transfer process smoother. So the issue is not 
how much money do we need to line item for the formation of a CRADA or 
a license--the CRADA is simply a by product of a organic tech transfer 
process in the Department's R&D programs. The issue is what kind of 
organizational structure in the DOE do we need to keep track of these 
tech transfer activities and how to insure that it is easily accessible 
for potential partnerships.
  If as I have just described that tech transfer occurs organically to 
the Department's R&D mission areas we need to ask ourselves is there an 
infrastructure that moves beyond the single contractual framework which 
a CRADA represents? Tech transfer is not so much a static contract but 
it is a multi-dimensional transactional process. In some select cases 
we should stimulate the transactional tech transfer process by regional 
technology clusters. Technology clusters will permit industry to locate 
around these wonderful pools of scientific knowledge. In turn they will 
build the R&D infrastructure surrounding the laboratory itself. We all 
too often think that the internet can solve the distance problem of 
connecting business transactions thus negating the need for regional 
technology clusters--that's actually wrong, very wrong. Successful 
utilization of R&D technology starts because many small business are 
nearby to each other in a supportive state business climate. The 
technology clusters that form simply use the internet to exchange ideas 
and data that they generate from face-to-face collaboration on short 
notice. People to people transactions initiate business and wealth in a 
rather spontaneous event; the internet is simply a tool to make it more 
efficient. You see such natural clustering occurring in Wall Street for 
financial markets, Palo Alto for information technology, Detroit for 
automobiles and right here in Bethesda for genetics around the NIH. 
Thus, enabling the formation technology clusters rather than focusing 
on the static contractual CRADA process should be the next step in the 
evolution of federal technology transfer.

  The bill I am introducing today address the issues I have just 
outlined. It establishes a headquarters level Technology Transfer 
Coordinator as the Secretary's lead advocate for developing DOE 
technology transfer policy across its many missions. This Coordinator 
will collect and disseminate tech transfer data to Congress, the 
interagency and public. I have provided a ceiling limit of about $1 
million per year to collect this data and prepare the reports as 
required by law. I have provided additional funding for the Coordinator 
to help out the administrative tasks associated with the 
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group. This group is 
staffed by members from the DOE laboratories and facilities with the 
purpose to deconflict and disseminate publically DOE's R&D. The 
Interlaboratory Technology Partnerships Working Group is a powerful 
grass roots organization outside the beltway. This group operates at 
the local community and laboratory level where the technology 
initiates. I have designated the Coordinator as the Secretary's lead 
federal officer for the group's oversight by reporting its activities 
to Congress and the interagency. I have authorized about $1 million a 
year to leverage the Technology Partnerships Working Group's activities 
by ensuring that it can develop the necessary web interfaces and 
databases by which the public can easily access DOE's technology. I 
have expanded the clustering bill that was introduced in the last 
Congress through the Defense Authorization Act from the NNSA 
laboratories to the entire DOE complex. This expansion will permit 
industry to benefit from the entire range of technology R&D across the 
DOE. If successful, these clusters will strengthen our experience in 
technology clusters; it will actively involve the state and local 
communities in encouraging the role that a technology infrastructure 
will have in their economic development. I have authorized $10 million 
for these clusters while requiring a 50 percent in-kind funding 
contribution from the proposed partner. The clustering partner can be a 
state, university, R&D consortia or business entity. I have given the 
Secretary discretion to stop this clustering expansion if the pilot 
effort for the NNSA labs proves unworkable. I have authorized a small-
business advocate, to support DOE wide, for what has been a lab by lab 
policy. Such a small business provision is needed to accommodate the 
unique needs for R&D collaboration of start up businesses. I have 
proposed modifying the Department of Energy Organization Act to make it 
more flexible in entering into alternative research contracts with 
entities such as R&D consortia. Finally, I have asked the Secretary to 
examine the need for a policy to move people across the lab fence to 
start up companies. This policy is balanced against the unique mission 
areas of each lab. In some cases implementing such a policy may prove 
unworkable based upon a lab's mission requirement. If such a policy 
proves unreasonable based upon a particular lab's mission, I have given 
Secretary the discretion not to implement it. I must emphasize though 
that half of tech transfer is not just a piece of technology moving 
across the fence but the movement of people and their know-how to a 
small start up. Universities are a classic example of the movement of 
technology and people between their home institution and a small 
regional technology park. Everyone benefits from this flow in people, 
the start-up, the lab or facility with a more vibrant workforce 
surrounding it and the local economy through local high tech business 
start ups.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this is not another line item 
CRADA funding project, its not corporate welfare. This bill takes the 
tech transfer activities that are naturally occurring in all these 
varied science mission areas and leverages them with small amounts of 
funding--about 0.06 percent of DOE's overall budget.
  Let me summarize once more what I have just outlined is in the 
proposed bill. First, a small Technology Transfer Coordinator is 
proposed to be the Secretary's advocate across the Department for 
uniform policy development and reporting. Second, a small web based 
interface is proposed to help the public easily access and leverage the 
R&D activities at all the DOE labs and facilities. Third, I've proposed 
to help seed small technology clusters local to the labs under merit 
review and with the discretion not to proceed forward if the FY 2001 
NNSA pilot program proves unworkable. Technology clusters are the next 
evolutionary stage past a static CRADA. Fourth, I've asked the 
Secretary to implement, where its feasible, a policy where by 
laboratory personnel can move with the technology to start up a company 
outside the fence. Fifth, I asked the Secretary to ensure where its 
reasonable a uniform policy to help small businesses with their unique 
needs access DOE technology. Like most government programs that come 
under close scrutiny by Congress, their intent is worthy but the 
program's size oscillates greatly over time. The pendulum for tech 
transfer at the DOE is one such program. This program has swung from a 
$200 million program in the mid 1990's to essentially zero funding in 
FY 2001 with a minimal headquarter's office to help policy development 
across its diverse mission areas. This bill establishes what I feel is 
the right level of tech transfer in a R&D organization by leveraging 
the existing industrial collaboration that naturally occurs in carrying 
out their missions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 259

       Be in 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 ``National Laboratories 
     Partnership Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;

[[Page S1081]]

       (2) the term ``departmental mission'' means any of the 
     functions vested in the Secretary of Energy by the Department 
     of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) or other 
     law;
       (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
       (4) the term ``National Laboratory'' means any of the 
     following multi-purpose laboratories owned by the Department 
     of Energy--
       (A) Argonne National Laboratory;
       (B) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
       (C) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
     Laboratory;
       (D) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
       (E) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
       (F) Los Alamos National Laboratory;
       (G) National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
       (H) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
       (I) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; or
       (J) Sandia National Laboratory;
       (5) the term ``facility'' means any of the following 
     primarily single purpose entities owned by the Department of 
     Energy--
       (A) Ames Laboratory;
       (B) East Tennessee Technology Park;
       (C) Environmental Measurement Laboratory;
       (D) Fernald Environmental Management Project;
       (E) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
       (F) Kansas City Plant;
       (G) National Energy Technology Laboratory;
       (H) Nevada Test Site;
       (I) New Brunswick Laboratory;
       (J) Pantex Weapons Facility;
       (K) Princeton Plasma Physical Laboratory;
       (L) Savannah River Technology Center;
       (M) Standard Linear Accelerator Center;
       (N) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility;
       (O) Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; or
       (P) other similar organization of the Department designated 
     by the Secretary that engages in technology transfer, 
     partnering, or licensing activities;
       (6) the term ``nonprofit institution'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(5));
       (7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
       (8) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632);
       (9) the term ``technology-related business concern'' means 
     a for-profit corporation, company, association, firm, 
     partnership, or small business concern that--
       (A) conducts scientific or engineering research,
       (B) develops new technologies,
       (C) manufacturers products based on new technologies, or
       (D) performs technological services;
       (10) the term ``technology cluster'' means a concentration 
     of--
       (A) technology-related business concerns;
       (B) institutions of higher education; or
       (C) other nonprofit institutions,

     that reinforce each other's performance in the areas of 
     technology development through formal or informal 
     relationships;
       (11) the term ``socially and economically disadvantaged 
     small business concerns'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(4)); and
       (12) the term ``NNSA'' means the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration established by title XXXII of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 
     106-65).
       (13) the term Technology Partnerships Working Group refers 
     to the organization of technology transfer representatives of 
     DOE laboratories and facilities, the purpose of which is to 
     coordinate technology transfer activities occurring at DOE 
     laboratories and facilities, exchange information about 
     technology transfer practices, and develop and disseminate to 
     the public and prospective technology partners information 
     about DOE technology transfer opportunities and procedures.

     SEC. 3. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the appropriate 
     officials of the Department, shall establish a Technology 
     Infrastructure Program in accordance with this section.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to 
     improve the ability of National Laboratories or facilities to 
     support departmental missions by--
       (1) stimulating the development of technology clusters that 
     can support the missions of the National Laboratories or 
     facilities;
       (2) improving the ability of National Laboratories or 
     facilities to leverage and benefit from commercial research, 
     technology, products, processes, and services; and
       (3) encouraging the exchange of scientific and 
     technological expertise between National Laboratories or 
     facilities and--
       (A) institutions of higher education,
       (B) technology-related business concerns,
       (C) nonprofit institutions, and
       (D) agencies of State, tribal, or local governments,

     that can support the mission of the National Laboratories and 
     facilities.
       (c) Program.--In each of the first three fiscal years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary may 
     provide no more than $10,000,000 to National Laboratories or 
     Facilities designated by the Secretary to conduct Technology 
     Infrastructure Program Programs.
       (d) Projects.--The Secretary shall authorize the Director 
     of each National Laboratory or facility designated under 
     subsection (c) to implement the Technology Infrastructure 
     Program at such National Laboratory or facility through 
     projects that meet the requirements of subsections (e) and 
     (f).
       (e) Program Requirements.--Each project funded under this 
     section shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) Minimum participants.--Each project shall at a minimum 
     include--
       (A) a National Laboratory or facility; and
       (B) one of the following entities--
       (i) a business,
       (ii) an institution of higher education,
       (iii) a nonprofit institution, or
       (iv) an agency of a State, local, or tribal government.
       (2) Cost sharing.--
       (A) Minimum amount.--Not less than 50 percent of the costs 
     of each project funded under this section be provided from 
     non-Federal sources.
       (B) Qualified funding and resources.--
       (i) The calculation of costs paid by the non-Federal 
     sources to a project shall include cash, personnel, services, 
     equipment, and other resources expended on the project.
       (ii) Independent research and development expenses of 
     government contractors that qualify for reimbursement under 
     section 31-205-18(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations 
     issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) may be credited 
     towards costs paid by non-Federal sources to a project, if 
     the expenses meet the other requirements of this section.
       (iii) No funds or other resources expended either before 
     the start of a project under this section or outside the 
     project's scope of work shall be credited toward the costs 
     paid by the non-Federal sources to the project.
       (3) Competitive selection.--All projects where a party 
     other than the Department or a National Laboratory or 
     facility receives funding under this section shall, to the 
     extent practicable, be competitively selected by the National 
     Laboratory or facility using procedures determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary or his designee.
       (4) Accounting standards.--Any participant receiving 
     funding under this section, other than a National Laboratory 
     or facility, may use generally accepted accounting principles 
     for maintaining accounts, books, and records relating to the 
     project.
       (5) Limitations.--No federal funds shall be made available 
     under this section for--
       (A) construction; or
       (B) any project for more than five years.
       (f) Selection Criteria.--
       (1) Threshold funding criteria.--The Secretary shall 
     authorize the provision of Federal funds for under this 
     section only when the Director of the National Laboratory or 
     facility managing such a project determines that the project 
     is likely to improve the participating National Laboratory or 
     facility's ability to achieve technical success in meeting 
     departmental missions.
       (2) Additional criteria.--The Secretary shall also require 
     the Director of the National Laboratory or facility managing 
     a project under this section to consider the following 
     criteria in selecting a project to receive Federal funds--
       (A) the potential of the project to succeed, based on it 
     technical merit, team members, management approach, 
     resources, and project plan;
       (B) the potential of the project to promote the development 
     of a commercially sustainable technology cluster, one that 
     will derive most of the demand for its products or services 
     from the private sector, that can support the missions of the 
     participating National Laboratory or facility;
       (C) the potential of the project to promote the use of 
     commercial research, technology, products, processes, and 
     services by the participating National Laboratory or facility 
     to achieve its departmental mission or the commercial 
     development of technological innovations made at the 
     participating National Laboratory or facility;
       (D) the commitment shown by non-Federal organizations to 
     the project, based primarily on the nature and amount of the 
     financial and other resources they will risk on the project;
       (E) the extent to which the project involves a wide variety 
     and number of institutions of higher education, nonprofit 
     institutions, and technology-related business concerns 
     that can support the missions of the participating 
     National Laboratory or facility and that will make 
     substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the 
     project;
       (F) the extent of participation in the project by agencies 
     of State, tribal, or local governments that will make 
     substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the 
     project; and
       (G) the extent to which the project focuses on promoting 
     the development of technology-related business concerns that 
     are small business concerns or involves such small business 
     concerns substantively in the project.
       (3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit 
     the Secretary from requiring the consideration of other 
     criteria,

[[Page S1082]]

     as appropriate, in determining whether projects should be 
     funded under this section.
       (g) Report to Congress on Full Implementation.--Not later 
     than 120 days after the start of the third fiscal year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     report to Congress on whether the Technology Infrastructure 
     Program should be continued and, if so, how the fully 
     implemented program should be managed.

     SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Advocacy Function.--The Secretary shall direct the 
     Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the 
     Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, to establish a small business advocacy function 
     that is organizationally independent of the procurement 
     function at the National Laboratory or facility. The person 
     or office vested with the small business advocacy function 
     shall--
       (1) work to increase the participation of small business 
     concerns, including socially and economically disadvantaged 
     small business concerns, in procurement, collaborative 
     research, technology licensing, and technology transfer 
     activities conducted by the National Laboratory or facility;
       (2) report to the Director of the National Laboratory or 
     facility on the actual participation of small business 
     concerns in procurement and collaborative research along with 
     recommendations, if appropriate, on how to improve 
     participation;
       (3) make available to small business concerns training, 
     mentoring, and clear, up-to-date information on how to 
     participate in the procurement and collaborative research, 
     including how to submit effective proposals;
       (4) increase the awareness inside the National Laboratory 
     or facility of the capabilities and opportunities presented 
     by small business concerns; and
       (5) establish guidelines for the program under subsection 
     (b) and report the effectiveness of such program to the 
     Director of the National Laboratory or facility.
       (b) Establishment of Small Business Assistance Program.--
     The Secretary shall direct the Director of each National 
     Laboratory, and may direct the Director of each facility the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, to establish a 
     program to provide small business concerns--
       (1) assistance directed at making them more effective and 
     efficient subcontractors or suppliers to the National 
     Laboratory or facility; or
       (2) general technical assistance, the cost of which shall 
     not exceed $10,000 per instance of assistance, to improve the 
     small business concern's products or services.
       (c) Use of Funds.--None of the funds expended under 
     subsection (b) may be used for direct grants to the small 
     business concerns.

     SEC. 5. POLICY CONTINUITY FOR PARTNERSHIPS, AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   TRANSFER.

       (a) The Secretary shall establish within the Office of 
     Policy, in conjunction with that Office's responsibilities as 
     executive secretariat to the Department's Research and 
     Development Council, a Technology Transfer Coordinator to 
     perform oversight of and policy development for technology 
     transfer activities at the Department of Energy.
       (1) The Secretary through Technology Transfer Coordinator, 
     shall to the extent feasible, insure that the recommendations 
     from the Report as generated by the Secretary of Energy 
     Advisory Board in Sec. 3163 of the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001'' are coordinated and 
     carried Department-wide to non-NNSA laboratories and 
     facilities consistent with the statutory authority of the 
     Administrator of the NNSA.
       (2) No funds under Section 3(c) for partnerships shall be 
     allocated under this Act until the Secretary through the 
     Technology Transfer Coordinator has submitted to Congress an 
     implementation plan that adequately addresses concerns 
     outlined by the Administrator of NNSA of the Technology 
     Infrastructure Pilot Program of collaborative projects as 
     outlined in Section 3161(b) of the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001''. The Secretary shall 
     retain the discretion to not implement the partnership 
     program defined by Section 3 if the implementation concerns 
     cannot be reasonably addressed.
       (3) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall prepare a 
     report to Congress for each fiscal year of funding under this 
     Act outlining accomplishments, anticipated shortfalls, 
     proposed remedies and expenditure of funds related to DOE 
     Technology Transfer. The report should address the 
     integration of the Department's Technology Transfer efforts 
     within the overall scope of Technology Transfer Policies 
     within the U.S. Government.
       (4) The Technology Transfer Coordinator shall be designated 
     by the Secretary as the Senior Departmental Official 
     responsible for liaison with, and the oversight of funds 
     authorized in section 5(c) the Technology Partnerships 
     Working Group. The Coordinator shall report on the Group's 
     activities and budget in subsection (3).
       (b) Authorization.--The following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Energy, to carry out the 
     duties of the Technology Transfer Coordinator and staff, to 
     remain available until expended, for the purposes of carrying 
     out this Act:
       (1) $2,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (1) $2,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (1) $2,800,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
       (c) Policy Development.--of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (b) the following sums are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out DOE Technology 
     Transfer Policy Development and Reporting:
       (1) $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (2) $1,100,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (3) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (4) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (5) $1,200,000 for Fiscal Year 2006
       (d) Technology Partnerships Working Group.--of the funds 
     under subsection (b), the following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out administrative tasks DOE Technology 
     Partnerships Working Group:
       (1) $1,400,000 for Fiscal Year 2002
       (2) $1,500,000 for Fiscal Year 2003
       (3) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2004
       (4) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2005
       (5) $1,600,000 for Fiscal Year 2006

     SEC. 6. OTHER TRANSACTIONS AUTHORITY.

       (a) New Authority.--Section 646 of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7256) is amended adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Other Transactions Authority.--(1) In addition to 
     other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into 
     procurement contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, 
     grants, and other similar arrangements, the Secretary may 
     enter into other transactions with public agencies, 
     private organizations, or persons on such terms as the 
     Secretary may deem appropriate in furtherance of basic, 
     applied, and advanced research functions now or hereafter 
     vested in the Secretary. Such other transactions shall not 
     be subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Federal 
     Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5908).
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that--
       ``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, no transaction 
     entered into under paragraph (1) provides for research that 
     duplicates research being conducted under existing programs 
     carried out by the Department of Energy; and
       ``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a 
     transaction authorized by paragraph (1) do not exceed the 
     total amount provided by other parties to the transaction.
       ``(B) A transaction authorized by paragraph (1) may be used 
     for a research project when the use of a standard contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not 
     feasible or appropriate.
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall not disclose any trade secret 
     or commercial or financial information submitted by a non-
     Federal entity under paragraph (1) that is privileged and 
     confidential.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall not disclose, for five years 
     after the date the information is received, any other 
     information submitted by a non-Federal entity under paragraph 
     (1), including any proposal, proposal abstract, document 
     supporting a proposal, business plan, or technical 
     information that is privileged and confidential.
       ``(C) The Secretary may protect from disclosure, for up to 
     five years, any information developed pursuant to a 
     transaction under paragraph (1) that would be protected from 
     disclosure under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States 
     Code, if obtained from a person other than a Federal 
     agency.''.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Department shall 
     establish guidelines for the use of other transactions. Other 
     transactions shall be made available, if needed, in order to 
     implement projects funded under section 3.

     SEC. 7. MOBILITY OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

       (a) General Policy.--Not later than two years after the 
     enactment of this Act, based upon the report generated under 
     Section 3161(a)(2) of the ``National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2001'', the Secretary through the 
     Technology Transfer Coordinator shall determine whether it is 
     reasonable to ensure whether each contractor operating a 
     National Laboratory or facility has policies and procedures 
     that do not create disincentives to the transfer of 
     scientific, technical and business personnel among the 
     contractor-operated National Laboratory or facilities. This 
     determination may be made on an individual laboratory or 
     facility basis due to their varied missions.

     SEC. 8. CONFORMANCE WITH NNSA STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

       All actions taken by the Secretary in carrying out this Act 
     with respect to National Laboratories and facilities that are 
     part of the NNSA shall be through the Administrator for 
     Nuclear Security in accordance with the requirements of title 
     XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2000.
                                 ______