New Jersey should be complimented. The State of New Jersey has some good, stringent traffic laws, including a 3month provision. I do not believe the bill will be harmed by containing a 3month provision. Buch a provision might encourage some States to follow suit.

This is another part of the traffic safety problem that the Committee on Commerce dealt with about 2 years ago. The committee began a driver registration clearinghouse in Washington, D.C.—a sort of traffic FBI for drivers who move from one State to another. The States were asked to take advantage of this, and 50 States did so. At the present time, 40,000 inquiries a day are being received.

The desire is to make the bill more workable, and the 3-month provision will not hurt it at all. It might make the bill better.

I am glad to accept the amendment.

Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from Washington. He is the parent and I am the coparent of this Driver Registration Service, in a sense; and I believe the Joint paternity in this case is working well.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. COTTON. I Join the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Washington, in saying to the Senator from New Jersey, that this amendment makes a distinct improvement to the bill.

Mr. President, other Senators may wish to speak later about the pending patent amendment. However, having offered the amendment on behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] and other Senators, I should like to make a brief statement.

At the eleventh hour, the committee tacked onto the bill, as section 106(c), a restrictive patent provision which may curtail the safety research that is so vital to the campaign against traffic accidents and injuries.

We opposed this amendment when it was offered in the committee. I am referring to the Senators who signed the minority views-namely, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON), the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT), the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY), the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK). We shall oppose it on the floor, and feel so strongly about it that we have been impelled to file our individual views, despite our overall support of the bill.

The subsection requires that any patent developed with the aid of a Federal contribution must be made freely and fully available to the general publicunless the Federal contribution is minimal-whatever that might mean.

Plausible as this might seem at first glance, its real effect is liable to defeat the main purpose of the bill. Consider, for instance, the position of a firm or an individual with highly promising ideas for a safety development who needs additional research funds to complete his

research and development work. Federal assistance might hasten the work and bring the invention to public usefulness sooner. But the developer, who would lose all his rights to the invention under the committee amendment, could hardly afford to accept Federal aid. The public safety will be the clear loserand no one the gainer-under the amendment.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 8 question?

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Under the approach advocated by the Senator from New Hampshire and his group, would it be possible to ask that public money be spent, then to develop the article with public funds, and then enable the inventor to secure a patent and charge $100 for a better seat belt that would cost only $10 to manufacture, or in some cases deny it to the public entirely?

Mr. COTTON. I certainly do not believe so. The bill not only empowers but also enjoins the Secretary of Commerce to undertake safety research on his own. It is adequately safeguarded against the situation mentioned.

I should like to finish my reference to the minority views; then I shall respond to the question of the Senator from Louisiana more fully.

The fundamental aim of the bill is safety, yet the amendment throws a new, unforeseen roadblock in the path of safety research.

Furthermore, the provision is another attempt at a patchwork, piecemeal approach to the problem of patent policies and federally supported research.

Twice last year the Senate rejected similar provisions because it felt the problem should be dealt with through comprehensive, general legislation. Such a bill, S. 1809, has now been approved by the Senate Patents Subcommittee and is actively being marked up by the full Judiciary Committee. There is no justification for further complicating the matter by yet another separate amendment.

We belleve section 106(c) should be deleted. The Senate should be given the opportunity to consider the comprehensive bill now before the Judiciary Committee. In the meantime, the public interest will be adequately and soundly protected because research authorized by this bill will be subject to the general Government patent policies prescribed by President Kennedy in 1963.

Mr. President, I find a remarkable statement in the report of the committee, which I assume was prepared by the majority staff, with perhaps some suggestions from the minority staff.

I refer to the bottom of page 14, the portion which discusses section 106(c), the section that our amendment seeks to delete:

Section 106 (c), by denying contractors exclusive rights in the performance of research activities where the Federal contribution is "more than minimal," will help curtail unnecessary industry pleas for Government financial support where the companies can do the research themselves. By doing their own research and securing patents on inven

tions which they discover, the companies in the auto industry can make substantial progress toward increasing auto safetywithout having to make substantial use of public funds.

Now, knowing all the bright young men who serve on the staff of the Committee on Commerce, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine which member of the staff could possibly be the author of such an utterly assinine statement as that. Let me explain why I characterize it so strongly.

The Committee on Commerce did not legislate in a vacuum. The Committee on Commerce heard evidence from the automobile industry. They heard evidence from all interested parties. They heard evidence from Mr. Nader. They heard evidence from the representatives of various associations and organizations, State, and National, interested in automobile safety. The committee knows exactly what the position of the industry is on various matters.

There is one thing that is absolutely certain. The automobile industry in this country is one industry that does not and will not seek financial aid, and does not want financial aid or participation from the Government in designing, engineering, researching, and building automobiles.

They are perfectly capable of financing their own engineering and designing, and their own safety devices. They displayed a good deal of feeling that they wanted to be permitted to do it.

Now, instead of this provision protecting the Treasury from being raided by these poor, impoverished automobile manufacturers, the biggest manufacturing industry in this country, and to get the Government to help them make research and to help them engineer their cars, what does this provision do, as a matter of fact?

It does not strike at the industry. It strikes at the Secretary of Commerce or a Secretary of Transportation, whichever may be charged with administering the program of automobile safety under the bill. It strikes at them for this reason: The Government needs the experience, needs the advice, needs the knowhow, and needs the facts from the automotive industry on safety devices if the Secretary is to be able and prepared to carry out the admonition in the bill that he shall engage in research and safety in automobile construction.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. Does not the Senator feel that way because these are the giants in our industry? Certainly I have no antipathy against the Big Three or Big Four. I am one of those who feels the bill should be passed exactly as reported from committee. I shall go so far as to vote against the restoration of the criminal penalty because I do not think it necessary.

We are trying to promote safety in the public interest. I believe this bill does that and does it effectively. I do not believe we ought to hit anybody over the head with a club. I do not think we ought to keep hitting them until the

Big Four cry out “Uncle"-"Uncle Sam.” This should not be a punitive attempt on our part. This should be a crusade to improve the quality character of the automobiles on the highways so that public safety will be promoted.

But I say this to my distinguished friend. It is contemplated here that the Secretary of Commerce shall enter into certain contracts in order to conduct research and in order to promote safety. Public funds are to be expended for that purpose, and certainly those funds are going to be given to these automotive giants.

Does not the Senator think that once industry makes a discovery with public money that it should be shared with all of the giants? It will not do me any good, or the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] any good, or the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] any good, once they make the discovery. But all the discoveries will be available to all automobile manufacturers rather than becoming exclusive to the one concern making a discovery and this is proper because the discovery was with advanced public money. I understand that industry is not opposed to this provision.

Mr. COTTON. If the Senator had waited until I had completed a few more sentences I would have emphasized, as I am emphasizing, that he is 100 percent right. They are not opposed to it.

The automobile industry, I am informed-and I believe every member of the committee, I am informed-do not give a hoot about whether this provision remains in the bill or not because it is their policy and they are well equipped to do their own designing, engineering, and building of cars.

What I was about to emphasize was the fact that when the Secretary, who is administering this safety program, comes around to seek the cooperation-if he has a suggestion, perhaps, on how the structure of an automobile may be strengthened to protect the occupants, or a suggestion as to some device for safety, and he wants to have the expertise of the automotive builders and manufacturers of parts or any others in exploring this possibility, they will not dare to help him. Why? I do not know what the word "minimal" means, but the moment they enter into any program whatsoever with the Secretary of Commerce they must forego any patent rights and whatever they might develop themselves they would have to turn over to the world at large. That is not the way businessmen work when they are putting investments into developing devices.

That is why I say with respect to this particular paragraph in the bill, I am surprised that the Secretary of Commerce has not been lobbying against it because it handicaps him. It is not going to affect the major carmakers at all but it is going to make it infinitely more difficult and more expensive-not less expensive as this statement in the report indicates--more expensive to the Federal Government.

The Federal Government will probably, as a result, not through intentional boycotting by the industry, but as a result

are not entirely sincere in their desires, this gives them an excuse, if we please, to not put their cards on the table work

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

swer.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Will the Senator concede as I gather from his

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Is the Senator aware of the fact that we have had testimony from all of these agencies, the Atomic Energy Commission and others, which are not permitted to grant private patents on their research, to the effect that they never had the problem of finding enough contractors to do the research for them? The problem has been that they did not have enough contracts to go around.

Can the Senator explain to me why the Secretary ought to permit under his contract on highway automobile safety a result wherein a contractor would be guaranteed a profit on the research, but could be in a position to charge perhaps $100 for a $15 seat belt, or even deny the public completely the benefit for that which the public paid?

Mr. COTTON. Yes, I can explain that to the distinguished Senator in a very few words. This whole bill, page after page after page, and the President's messageand it is an able message-reflects again and again the aim that there shall be cooperation between the Government and the automobile industry in working out and building safer automobiles. In the bill can be found the carrot method of incentive, and the admonition can also be found. This is the situation. After building up this bill for weeks and weeks and weeks with the devoted attention of the committee on both sides of the aisle and the able staff, all on the theory that we want to put everything possible into the bill which will advance the pooling of knowledge between the industry and the Government, and result in every possible, reasonable, safe improvement in automobiles, at the last minute the committee reversed itself and adopted the provision.

I would be the first to commend my friend from Louisiana who has, with great sincerity and dedication, fought the fight on this patent business between Government and industry through the years. I understand that the problem will be brought to a head in another bill shortly. But this bill is not the place for it. In this bill, under section 106(c) we raise the specter of an industry losing its exclusive rights of patent when it pools its knowledge with the Government. We make it more difficult for the workshop of the Secretary and the workshop of industry to cooperate fully to advance the cause of auto safety. Furthermore, it is pretty hard to see what is minimal and what is not.

I do not care what other companies the Senator refers to, the automotive industry has openly and without arrogance asserted again and again that it is perfectly capable of financing its own research. We are asking them to pool their efforts with the Government, then we write this thing in the bill which injects a serious element of doubt. If they

bill if he does not have the support of the automobile manufacturer?

Mr. COTTON. No, I do not believe they are interested in this. I want it stricken from the bill, because I believe it would impair the safety of the bill.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Congress has passed many laws. It is the rule rather than the exception that in dealing with public health and safety, as long as I have been a Senator, and even before that, Congress has repeatedly insisted on putting provisions in its bills relating to health and safety to assure that the fruits of research will be freely available to all. For example, on Department of Agriculture legislation, TVA, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, Helium Research Act, the Water Pollution Act, Water Resources Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, it was the rule rather than the exception that in these areas of health and safety, the committees originating these bills have had a way of saying that the research programs would be made freely available to all.

Even the bill that is being suggested by the majority of the Subcommittee on Patents of the Judiciary Committee, headed by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN], suggests that in this area they should not be private patents, except in exceptional cases. The whole record of legislation in regard to the fruits of Government-financed research has been that committees originating that kind of legislation have suggested what should be done with the fruits of that legislation.

In this instance, the manufacturers feel that this gives them no problem. As a practical matter with their own private research, paid for out of their own funds, the manufacturers make their research freely and fully available to one another, anyway. They take advantage of a situation, in a new model sometimes, on which there will be new devices, or something new to offer. The industry releases all kinds of permits to all competitors who are using the things developed. Thus, to a large extent, what has been developed, even with their private funds, is being made available to alland I know that the Senator knows that to be the case.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield?

Mr. COTTON. I should like to make one point first. One thing I should like to emphasize and impress upon my good friend from Louisiana is that when he asks, do I have the support of the automobile industry, I should like to inform him that I am not representing the automobile industry in any way, shape, or manner. So far as I knew, the automobile industry did not care about this, whether it stays in the bill or not. Thus, I want to make that crystal clear to the

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. May I point out to the Senator from New Hampshire and ask him if it is not correct that the record of this Congress and the record of the two previous Congresses with respect to the patent policy has been this: Whenever a committee had brought forth a bill creating research and authorizing a research program, Congress has sustained that committee in what it has recommended in respect to patent rights?

When the Senator from Louisiana has sought to change the law or amend the law to require some agency to be more careful about giving away patent rights, the amendment has been tabled. That was done with respect to the Pastore motion and also the Dodd motion with respect to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

It has been true that for the last 18 years the Senate has consistently sustained what the committee said should be done with the fruits of the research authorized by that committee's research program.

Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield

the floor.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT).

nearly so as possible, in bringing out a very strong motor vehicle safety bill.

My amendment would delete section 106(c), under this provision, the Federal Government would acquire ownership of inventions emerging from the motor vehicle safety research authorized by this bill in all cases where its financial share of the funding of such research is more than minimal.

Mr. President, I am bound to say that none of us know what "minimal" means. It has the usual built-in caveat, for me at least, that an uncertain word which is not necessarily or fully a word of art may be construed by one agency administrator one way and by another another; so that no genuine guideline is really presented.

I think that section 106 (c) should be deleted for three reasons:

First, it is ill-timed, since legislation to establish a Government patent policy in the disposition of rights under its research and development contracts is in a stage of advanced consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I attended a session of the full Committee on the Judiciary this morning. The general overall patents policy bill, S. 1809, was under discussion. All members of the committee desire to dispose of S. 1809 at the earliest practicable moment.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I appreclate the fact that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN], the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON), the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON], and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] have joined me in sponsoring this amendment.

My amendment is to delete a provision from the bill similar to other provisions which have been rejected by the Senate in earlier legislation-the so-called Long amendments on patents. On June 2, 1965, by a vote of 59 to 26, the Senate tabled the Long amendment on patents developed in connection with NASA contracts; and on June 29, 1965, by a vote of 55 to 36, the Senate agreed to a motion to table the Long amendment on patents developed in connection with regional heart disease, cancer, and stroke programs.

I invite the attention of the Senate to the statement in the committee report on S. 3005 by the six Republican members of the committee in opposition to section 106(c) of the bill. This provision was tacked onto the bill at the last minute Tuesday, without previous opportunity for mature consideration, and after much time had been expended in preparing the bill for report under circumstances which would enable us to be unanimous, or as

piecemeal fashion would not only run counter to the intent of those of us on the Judiciary Committee who have been considering this measure over quite a long period of time, but would also essentially run counter in many ways to the Kennedy policy, to which I shall refer later, which is presently the Federal policy absent specific congressional declaration.

Second, this section is unnecessary as an interim measure until such time that patent policy legislation is adopted into law.

There is, at present, an equitable, logical, and workable policy currently in effect under the "President's Statement on Government Patent Policy," promulgated in October 1963.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum of the late President Kennedy, under date of October 10, 1953, be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. SCOTT. The memorandum to which I just referred establishes Government policy pending the enactment of general patent policy legislation.

I read a part of one paragraph:

This statement of policy seeks to protect the public interest by encouraging the Government to acquire the principal rights to inventions in situations where the nature of the work to be undertaken or the Government's past investment in the field of work favors full public access to resulting inventions. On the other hand, the policy recognizes that the public interest might also be served by according exclusive commercial rights to the contractor in situations where the contractor has an established non-governmental commercial position and where there is greater likelihood that the invention would be worked and put into civilian use

Vol. I.