On page 6, section (8) it says that an invention shall be void when the contractor "knowingly withheld" rendering a prompt and full disclosure to that agency of such invention.

How can an invention be voided under present law and procedure? This whole section is meaningless and impossible; there is no way of revoking a patent unless fraud is proven.

Now, let us look at paragraph (9) on page 6, which provides "that nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as requiring the granting to the United States of any right or interest duly acquired in or with respect to any patent issued for any invention not made in the course of or under the contract.”

What is the precise meaning of this paragraph, especially when combined with the definition of the term "made" on page 3 Does this mean that even if I thought of an idea and the Government paid to have it developed, it is not "made" under the contract? Is an idea plus a patent application without any actual reduction to practice enough to include it under this paragraph?

Is it not administratively almost impossible to prove that the invention was not conceived before the contract? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that this paragraph alone could be the basis of a mass giveaway.

Section 2(a) limits the scope of "invention" to patentable inventions (cf. sec. 2(g) of S. 1899).

S. 1809 does not establish any single agency charged with the administration and prosecution of the Government's proprietary interests. (See sec. 4 of S. 1899 to see how this should be covered.)

S. 1809 makes no affirmative provision for the collection and dissemination of scientific and technological information acquired by the United States.

I cite section 7 of S. 1899 for how this should be covered.

It contains no automatic screening provision to detect failure of the contractor to disclose fact of the making of invention under Government contract (cf. sec. 9 of S. 1899).

The Comptroller General of the United States conducted studies of Lockheed and Ramo Wooldridge, which are among the biggest Air Force research contractors. And what did he find out? The best things these fellows were discovering they had been keeping secret from the other guys for more than 4 long years. In other words, when Lockheed gets a good fuel to put a missile in the air, they say, for Pete's sake, don't let Ramo Wooldridge know about this. When Ramo Wooldridge finds out what is the best metal they say, for Pete's sake, don't let Lockheed find out. Here is a fellow, if he knows what is the best fuel, he doesn't know what is the best metal. If he knows what is the best metal, he doesn't know the best way of welding it. It is the blind leading the blind, a Tower of Babel, financed by extortion and is a complete outrage of the public interest, all for the hope that each one of these guys is going to get rich because he is the only one that knows something. They withhold knowledge even though they all signed contracts promising that they would divulge their discoveries to the Government. This is what they get paid for. They are all in violation of the contract. Many of these big corporations are in violation of their contracts and yet they keep getting more contracts. Why? Just favoritism. It might have something to do with contributions to cam

paigns, but I don't know about that. There are very few of them that I have managed to raise money from. They have great influence and they are very charming and attractive fellows. The only thing I say about them is that they should give more to public service and demand less for it because I think they are doing pretty well the way they are going right now.

Now, back to S. 1809. It contains no provision for awards for inventive contributions (cf. sec. 9 of S. 1899).

Section 4(a) specifies conditions in which the United States is to require "principal or exclusive" rights, but does not specify what those rights are to be.

Section 4(a) specifies a too limited set of conditions under which such greater rights are to be obtained by the United States. The inference is that outside of these limited conditions, the Government's property rights will be given away to the contractor. In addition, these conditions completely fail to take into account: (a) the relative contributions of the United States and the contractor to the invention: (b) the effect upon restraint of trade.

Section 4 (a) permits the grant of greater rights to the contractor in "exceptional circumstances-whatever this means-but provides no standards whatever to guide an agency head in determining what action is in the public interest.

In this connection, Senator Ribicoff, when he was Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, warned about the danger in the use of the phrase "exceptional circumstances."

The phrase "in exceptional circumstances," is relatively vague and indefinite and, in the absence of any indicated criteria in the policy itself would appear to leave considerable latitude to each agency head to determine what constitutes such circumstances. While this does have the advantage of providing flexibility. it does have the disadvantage of exposing agency heads to the pressures of those contractors who would urge that each circumstance of hardship, however slight. represents an exceptional circumstance calling for more generous allocation of invention rights.

Section 4(b) too sharply limits the extent of the right the Government may acquire, without regard to the extent of the Government's contribution.

Section 4(c) again, provides no standards whatever to guide the agency head in determining what "special circumstances" are referred to, or in what way the "public interest" is to be determined.

These are only a few of the many objections I have about S. 1809. In the days and weeks to come, I and others shall discuss this problem on the floor of the Senate, so the public at large as well as the Senate may better understand what is at stake.

S. 1809 is loaded against the public and its Government. Its net effect is that except in a few limited and nebulous cases, the private contractors are going to get private monopolies on the results of the vast sums spent on research and development by the public.

Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this morning I was at the Department of Justice discussing a controversy that involves the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government. We were talking about the tidelands controversy and precisely what a base line would be.

I admire the Solicitor General of the United States, Archibald Cox. He is an able man. He is on the other side of the issue. I am on the

Louisiana side and he is on the Federal side, but he made a very simple suggestion.

He said, look, Senator, let us quit talking about this matter as though you are representing Louisiana and I am representing the Federal Government. Let's us just assume you represent Texas Co., and I represent Gulf and that the Gulf Oil Co., is the Federal Government and the Texas Oil Co., is Louisiana.

He said, let us talk about the claim on that basis because it is my duty to talk to you about it on just that basis. That is how we are going to do business. And if I do say it, that tended to clarify the atmosphere because he feels that he is representing his client and I am representing mine. And that is how I think we ought to do whether we are lawyers or Senators or Congressmen, representing 192 million people or 3 million people for Louisiana and a similar number for Arkansas and a lesser number for North Dakota. Let us just think about this thing as though we are lawyers looking after the interests. of our clients.

If you signed a $100 million research contract with some fellow and you let him keep the patent rights to it, your stockholders wouldn't just fire you. They would probably institute criminal proceedings. They would figure that there had to be something crooked about a deal in which you spend $100 million of their money and the fruits of it go to the fellow that you gave the money to. They would say it just had to be crooked. And they probably would wind up putting us in jail unless we could prove we were ignorant, stupid, and didn't know what we were doing.

Now, we represent over 190 million Americans. How can we justify giving these contracts for fantastic amounts and letting these people charge the folks their eyeballs for the benefit of it? Fortunately, penicillin was developed in Government laboratories in Peoria, Ill. The fellow who developed it might have had a little incentive award but his great reward will be in heaven for what he did for mankind.

Now, if he had been on one of these cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, they could be charging you $100 for a dose of that stuff. If you got pneumonia and needed the drug, you would either have to pay it or die. Fortunately, as a result of penicillin being made available to any drug producer, competition brought the price per 100,000 units down from $20 in 1943 to 2 cents in 1956 or 1,000-fold. If a private firm had a patent on it, it could just say, either you pay the price or die.

When we pay for a new development or discovery, why don't we act like representatives of the people? Just as we would act if we were a lawyer representing 3 million stockholders of some big corporation and protecting their interests. Look after them. That is what I think they are paying us for.

Now, they may have a different opinion about it but it seems to me that is what we are here for. We are here to look after their interests and to protect the public weal, not just parcel it out to a bunch of congenial pirates, and that is about what we will be doing, in my judgment, if we permit our Government's research effort to be the private domain of folks who get this $15 billion of Government research.

Just one other matter I want to mention for a moment. There is just a lot of research we are paying for that we need not pay for at all.

This Government will go up to some outfit like Standard Oil of New Jersey and say, we would like to have a new jet fuel for a particular jet engine that we are inventing. Standard Oil of New Jersey has done enough research on their own account and knows enough about the subject so that they can do that for you without any difficulty whatever. They have got enough background information to where it is as as easy as falling off a log.

Now, oh, yes, you can force onto them a couple of hundred thousand dollars to do this, but as a practical matter if you said, "Look, here is the engine and we would like you to develop a fuel with a certain octane and certain characteristics for this engine and if you will develop it, we will be glad to give you a procurement contract and let you make a nice profit selling it to us." That is all you would have to do.

Here is the area where some people would like to confuse things by saying, "Well, these folks would not be interested in doing research if they couldn't acquire the patent rights to it. All you have got to do is say that "that is what I want and we would like you to make it for us and we will buy it from you if you will."

Those folks would be more interested in having a private patent on it than they would be in divulging what they know to you. They would rather develop it, manufacture it, and patent it, and they would rather keep their trade secrets in their own shop. All you have got to do is just tell them that you would like to have the fuel.

As a matter of fact, I have talked to lawyers on this subject who tell me they have gone to great pains to try to persuade their concerns to take Government money. Now, if these folks would rather do the research with their own money, why not let them do it. If some firm wants to do it with Government money, then why not do business the way a private corporation would do it, just say, "All right, if we are going to pay for it, we get it."

Some time ago I asked a man who was at one time the General Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission, who is one of the great executives of America, how he looked upon this problem. At first he expressed the industry point of view, but when I pressed him on it as to just what the answer should be in any given set of circumstances, he gave the very simple answer that any good businessman would give you. He said whoever pays for the research ought to have the patents.

It is just that simple. And how else can you justify a corporation having the patents? The law doesn't permit them to take out the patent in their name. They have got to employ somebody to do the inventing, and when he does the inventing, they have got him tied down by contract which says if he so much as dreams up a good idea at night, even if it is a nightmare, it belongs to them and he has got to give it to them. It is theirs, private property. They make him apply for the patent and assign it to them.

That is good business. If I were a lawyer, that is how I would draft the contract.

Now, why shouldn't we follow the advice of businessmen? They keep coming down here telling us that we should do business the way a businessman would do business. Well, why not do it? They have been urging it. Do it just that way.

I understand that the Manufacturing Chemists Association testified before you for what they want to get out of the public. I am not sure whether it is the same outfit but one of these chemical outfits a short time ago invited me to a debate. They brought some fellow down from New York-I have seen him on television sometime or other-the best hired debater that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had. They brought him down from New York and told me they wanted to record the debate. At the time I agreed to go on, I didn't realize it was going to be a stacked deal, but I thought I was going to have some people who might be on my side. They said there would be some Government folks who would be sympathetic.

When I got there, I found they had really rigged this against Long. Everyone there was a specialist in getting something out of the Government and paying nothing for it.

So, I said, "Well, OK, you can record the debate provided you let me have a copy of that tape." This was to be played over Mutual Broadcasting System.

Well, I have done a lot of debating. I have won some and lost some. Most of them that we lost were my fault, not my partner's fault; and if I ever won a debate, I won that one. I really think I took that fellow from all sides, and when it was over with I asked for a copy of the tape. They said, "It will be coming, it will be coming." So I called back in about 3 hours: "Where is my tape"? I knew I won that one. They said, "The tape has been washed." They ran it back through and took everything off the tape.

These fellows had their best primed man down out of New York and their case is so sordid that they had to wash the tape and not let anybody hear it. And I will say to the Senators, anybody who wants to advocate this public giveaway, don't you go on that "Open End" program with someone on your side. This is an issue that must not be exposed to the press. The Washington Post in an editorial said they thought Senator Long was right about this matter. I heard from some of their people, by the grapevine, that they had never had such pressure in their lives brought to bear upon them, that all these big concerns that advertise suggested they weren't sure the Washington Post would be a proper publication to advertise in if that outfit was going to indicate that this giveaway of Government property should be discontinued.

I will say for that newspaper they had the courage to go on ahead and run another editorial. It looks as if they are still in business, which proves a point I want to make to politicians. You don't always have to bow down to these vested interests. You can fight them, give them sure hell when you think they are wrong, and still get some campaign money out of some of these fellows. You will be surprised how generous they can be from time to time. You can work for what you think is right, and if you do what in your heart and conscience you believe to be in the public interest, they will be tolerant, sympathetic, and understanding.

Why else do you think Western Electric, a subsidiary of American Telephone & Telegraph Co., is building a big plant in Louisiana after I fought that space communications bill? These fellows are more tolerant, generous, and understanding than some of us realize. They are paid to represent their corporations and their in