Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: As I understand it, you have the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment and on the Hatch- Biden-Sessions amendment but you do not have it on the Robb amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before the Senator from California speaks, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following her speech I be given recognition.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request in just a minute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. I have another amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I send another amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 999, the ``Technology Transfer Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this bill is to help ensure that the fruits of federally conducted and supported research will be translated into new products and jobs that can benefit the American public. This bill is necessary in order to adopt a uniform policy across the federal government concerning the circumstances in which it is appropriate to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license to intellectual property owned by the federal government. Essentially, this legislation codifies the most prudent, beneficial, and successful agency licensing policies that have evolved over the last few years. Each year the federal government makes a substantial investment in research and development. This year the federal government will dedicate about $79 billion toward research and development activities. Of this amount, about half--or $39 billion--is devoted to non-defense research. Much of this civilian R&D funding--over $15 billion in FY 1999--is carried out by universities across our country. Every American citizen should take pride in this considerable financial commitment because it explains why our country is in the forefront in so many areas of basic science and applied technology. While there is intrinsic value in research for the sake of advancement of knowledge, another, more tangible, benefit occurs when the mysteries of science are translated into new technologies that protect and promote the public health and welfare and create jobs. While Utah may be a small state in terms of population, I am proud to say that our universities are carrying out a vigorous program of research. For example, the University of Utah, Brigham Young University, and Utah State University each carry out substantial programs of research and in the aggregate received over $200 million in federal research support in 1998. Last year the research efforts of these three schools resulted in the issuance of patents on 40 inventions. No doubt this high level of financial support and creative activity are major reasons why our state has developed a thriving medical products industry over the last two decades. According to a recent survey of the Utah Life Science Association there are currently 116 firms--employing a total of over 11,000 people--engaged in the discovery and production of biomedical products in the state of Utah. Together, these firms produced revenues of $1.641 billion last year. Not only does this economic enterprise mean jobs for Utahns but also innovative new products for Americans and our neighbors around the world. To give just one example, researchers at the University of Utah were co-discoverers of the BRCA 1 gene which is implicated in certain kinds of breast cancer. A start-up Salt Lake City biomedical research firm, Myriad Genetics, was also a partner in this ground breaking research, as were intramural researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Building upon this basic research, academic researchers at the Huntsman Cancer Center at the University of Utah and private sector scientists at Myriad are playing a lead role in developing diagnostic tests and therapeutics which are aimed at combating the devastation of breast cancer. The success we have achieved in institutions of higher learning in Utah is also occurring across our Nation. According to the latest data available from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), in 1997, the efforts of U.S. universities, academic health centers, and certain other non-profit research entities resulted in over 11,000 invention disclosures, over 4,200 new patent applications being filed, and over 2,600 issued patents. Also according to AUTM, in 1997, over 3,300 new licenses were executed and total licensing income reached nearly $700 million. An economic model developed by AUTM estimates that about 250,000 jobs are attributable to commercializing academic research. Government labs have also contributed to this success story. For example, in FY 1998 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received nearly $40 million in royalty income. Also in 1998, NIH intramural labs reported 287 invention disclosures; filed 132 patent applications; were granted 171 patents; and, executed 215 licenses and 149 cooperative research and development agreements. In sharp contrast to the vibrant research and technology commercialization activities that are taking place in Utah and across our country today, the situation twenty years ago was vastly different. According to a 1978 survey, the federal government owned 78,000 patents but only 5 percent were ever licensed. Research and development is expensive, but it has been estimated that R&D accounts for only about 25% of the cost of bringing a new product to the market. Without adequate protection of intellectual property, it is simply not prudent for the private sector to invest in new technologies. In response to the problem of federally supported science languishing in the laboratory, the Congress passed a portfolio of legislation in the 1980s. The purpose of these measures was simple: to provide incentives in the intellectual property laws to help assure that federally-conducted and -supported research would be commercially developed so that the seeds of new ideas will be translated into the fruits of new products that can benefit the American public. My bill, S. 999, shares this goal and builds upon the previous intellectual property legislation in this area. The ``Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980'' (Public Law 96- 517) is commonly termed the Bayh-Dole Act out of the well-earned respect for its two far-sighted cosponsors, Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole. The Bayh-Dole Act created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies that fund research and increased incentives for universities to engage in government-supported research. Under the act, small businesses and nonprofit organizations, including universities, were permitted to retain ownership of patents stemming from federal funds. In turn, patent holders could grant licenses to companies to further develop and commercialize the patented invention. In 1986, Congress enacted the ``Federal Technology Transfer Act'' (Public Law 99-502). This law established new patenting, licensing and partnering policies for government laboratories. In concert with the philosophy of the Bayh-Dole Act, the FTTA contemplates an activist role for government laboratories in assisting in the journey from the laboratory to the market place. The FTTA amended the earlier ``Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980'' (Public Law 96-480), which proved insufficient to meet its intended charge of making transfer of federal technology a duty of all federal laboratories. In addition to mandating a federal role in the technology transfer arena by strengthening the intellectual property laws in the areas of patenting and licensing, the FTTA created and embraced a unique device--the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)--which encourages a government/private sector partnership in the earliest stages of research. In devising S. 999, I have worked closely with several colleagues, most prominently Representative Connie Morella, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology of the House Committee on Science. Chairman Morella, whose district is the home of the National Institutes of Health, has long been a leader in the area of technology policy. Chairman Morella and Representative George Brown, the thoughtful ranking member of the full Committee have often worked together in a bipartisan manner in this area and are cosponsors of H.R. 209, the House companion to S. 999. In this Chamber, Senator Rockefeller has a long and distinguished record in the area of technology policy. Together with Senator Frist, Senator Rockefeller introduced similar legislation last Congress and once again this year. I am working with all of these Members, as well as with Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and the Senate and House leadership to secure passage of this important legislation. Working together, I believe that we have succeeded in building upon as well as correcting some problems identified with the legislative proposals made last Congress, S. 2120 and H.R. 2544. S. 999 amends the patent code to make explicit when federal agencies should, and should not, grant exclusive licenses to its patented inventions. The bill permits an exclusive or partially exclusive license only if such a license is reasonable and necessary to attract the necessary private sector investment capital or otherwise promote the invention's utilization. The bill requires the agency to evaluate a potential licensee's development plans and level of capacity and commitment so that only the level of necessary exclusivity is granted. Once a license agreement is executed the bill requires a rigorous periodic evaluation of progress under the agreement and allows the government to terminate a license for non-performance of the terms of the license. The bill also requires that in granting patent licenses the government take into account possible effects on competition including any potential antitrust concerns. In the case of licensing inventions covered by foreign patents, the government is directed to consider the possible U.S. interest in foreign trade and commerce. In addition, the bill contains a domestic manufacturing requirement that is designed to keep jobs created through newly patented technologies in the United States. As well, the legislation contains a preference for issuing licenses to small businesses--the sector of the economy where most new jobs are created. Under the bill, the government would retain a nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention on behalf of the United States Government in the unlikely event this need should arise. Before any exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted under the authority of the patent code, the agency, except in cases of inventions made under an existing CRADA, must give at least 15 days public notice and consider any comments that are submitted. The bill treats any confidential commercial information as part of an application or periodic performance report under normal Freedom of Information Act principles. Mr. President, the ``Technology Transfer Act of 1999'' builds upon earlier legislation in this critical area. I am honored to be following in the footsteps of our former Majority Leader, Senator Dole, and the former Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Birch Bayh--father of the new member of the Senate from Indiana. I am also pleased to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors on the Judiciary Committee, which was the locus of activity for the seminal 1980 legislation that amended the patent code and changed our nation's patent licensing policies. I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing on Multiple Program Coordination in Early Childhood Education: The Agency Perspective.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Combating Hate Crimes: Promoting a Responsive and Responsible Role for the Federal Government.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business Thursday, May 11, 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).