« PreviousContinue »
program justifies consolidation, analysis, and summation of findings relevant to a distinct phase or segment of the experimental program. Formal, summary reports of findings shall be made at such time and in such format as agreed upon by representatives of the Bureau and the API monitoring the experimental work being done under this Agreement. Status reports of experimental work scheduled and in progress shall be furnished by the Bureau bimonthly.
Any publication or announcement at any time by either party giving results of the cooperative work under this Agreement shall recognize in the text and on the title page the cooperation of the other party. During the term of this Agreement neither party hereto shall publish or announce such results without prior written approval of the other party, it being understood and agreed that such prior approval from such other party shall not be required after termination or expiration of the term of this Agreement. Subject to the provisions of this Section, it is expressly agreed by both parties to this Agreement that information obtained hereunder is to be released publicly at the earliest time that it represents technically useful and valid findings.
9. (a) The obligation of the Bureau for its performance hereunder beyond June 30, 1966 are contingent upon annual appropriations being made available bs the Congress and funds being specifically reserved for the payment of those obligations, and, until such appropriations and funds are so made and reserved, neither party will be liable to the other for performance under this contract.
(b) The obligations of the API for its performance hereunder beyond De. cember 31, 1966 are contingent upon contributions provided by its sponsors for its financial support, and until such contributions are so made, neither party shall be liable to the other for performance under this contract.
(c) In case API sponsors provide the API with funds to support this cooperative work at less than the level stipulated herein for any given year, the Bureau shall have the option either to terminate the Agreement or to continue with an experimental program redesigned compatible with the funding available.
10. No member of or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
11. The Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been emploped or retained to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Contractor for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty the Government shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 12. During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising ; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contrartor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or unilerstanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order Yo. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
(5) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the contracting agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
(6) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the non-discrimination clauses of this contract or with any such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies involved as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
(7) The contractor will include the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance : Provided however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
13. This Agreement shall not become effective nor have any force or effect unless and until it is approved by the Director, Bureau of Mines.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have made and entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written, each copy of which shall constitute an original.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
By FRANCIS A. WARD, President. Approved May 3, 1966.
Acting Director, Bureau of Miner. Attest: (CORPORATE SEAL)
WILLARD M. WILSON,
(Title) I, Willard M. Wilson, certify that I am the Secretary of the corporation named above; that Frank N. Ikard who signed this contract on behalf of the corporation was then President of said corporation ; that said contract was duly signed for and in behalf of said corporation by authority of its charter, and is within the scope of its corporate powers.
(Sign) Willard M. Wilson.
(Print) WILLARD M. WILSON. Senator MUSKIE. Did you or someone in the Department of Interior attempt initially to receive funds for this antipollution program from Congress?
Dr. HIBBARD. There were no funds for this antipollution program in the President's budget as it went to Congress in fiscal 1967.
Senator MUSKIE. Were funds requested ?
Mr. WATKINS. I don't believe funds were requested in the budgeting process, no, sir,
Senator MUSKIE. Who took the initiative which resulted in the agreement with the American Petroleum Institute?
Dr. HIBBARD. The Bureau has a longstanding cooperative research history with the American Petroleum Institute. Our first cooperative agreement dates from 1922 I believe. In fact, this particular program was initiated by a research proposal which was prepared by us and submitted to the American Petroleum Institute.
Senator MUSKIE. Now it is not unusual for the development of agreements or contracts with industry under which private industry performs research which is financed by public funds.
But this is the reverse of that. In other words, the public agency is doing research financed in part by private industry.
Dr. HUBBARD. That is right. Senator MUSKIE. How widespread is this kind of activity in the Bureau of Mines?
Dr. HIBBARD. This kind of cooperative agreement dates back, as I say, to the early 1920's. In general the picture is that we do research and development related to the mining, extraction, processing, and use of mineral resources including fuels. The results of our research are aimed at the wise and effective use of our resources and our aim is to make sure that there is an adequate supply of mineral resources to support the economy and the security of the country.
Research of this sort does not become a part of the economy unless it is utilized by industry. So we have in fact a history of this kind of cooperative agreement aimed at transferring the technology from our bureau laboratories to industry where it can be used to the advantage of the general public.
We have, I think, some 40 of these kinds of agreements in effect now ranging through our entire scope of research activity.
We have found this to be a very effective way of getting technology into the private sector of the economy and promoting the wise use of our resources.
Senator MUSKIE. And as a way of supplementing your own financial resources. Dr. HIBBARD. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. Is this a deliberate choice as between the budget financing and industry financing of these research projects ?
Dr. HIBBARD. In general, I think we would like to promote our technology as rapidly as possible. I feel, personally, from my own experience in research management, that the sooner you can get the receptor of the technology to commit some of his own funding, the more easily and the more quickly you can transfer the technology.
So that this not only supplements our funding capability but it also is a very effective promoter of technology transfer.
Senator MUSKIE. The one question I would like to bring out here in the open and discuss frankly with you is the extent to which this kind of arrangement gives the other contracting party a proprietary interest in the information which you develop, and exclusive interest in the information you develop, in a way that at least raises questions as to its adaptability to the public.
Let me ask you specific questions about the agreement which you have with the American Petroleum Institute. For example, item No. 8 of your contract reads: Any publication or announcement at any time by either party giving results of the cooperative work under this agreement shall recognize in the text and on the title page the cooperation of the other party.
Dr. HIBBARD. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. Does this item in the agreement tend to make the Federal Government a partisan to the other party in the agreement? What are the implications of that?
Dr. HIBBARD. I think I can comment philosophically. I have been in my position but 6 months so I am not familiar with all of the details but I believe that the intent here is to develop a joint industry-Government type of cooperative effort to promote research and technology of mutual interest.
This item simply recognizes that philosophy. Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Watkins?
Mr. WATKINS. If I may comment further on that, Mr. Chairman, this is a standard clause in most of our cooperative agreements.
Senator MUSKIE. Standardized by habit and usage?
Mr. WATKINS. Both, sir. The usual way this works is that the Bureau of Mines does publish the results. The results are published regardless and made available to the general public.
Senator MUSKIE. On that point let me ask you another question relating to your contract and then you can cover the whole thing.
Item No. 7 of the contract states in part* * * such progress reports shall be made at such times as the Bureau and the American Petroleum Institute, acting jointly, judge progress in the experimental program justifies consolidation, analysis, and submission of findings relative to a distinct phase or segment of the experimental program.
Formal summary reports of findings shall be made at such time and in such format as agreed upon by representatives of the bureau and the API monitoring the experimental work being done under this agreement.
Does this mean that the API has a veto power over any inclination of the Bureau to publish reports or results of this cooperative effort?
Mr. Watkins. It has never meant this in our past agreements and ve interpret it as not meaning it in this one. In our past agreements with API we have had a steering committee which periodically reviews the work, offers suggestions concerning it. However, we have always had complete freedom of publication, subject, of course to
Senator MUSKIE. You never felt inhibited by any disagreement on the part of the American Petroleum Institutë as to the wisdom of publishing reports and information at any given point in time?
Mr. WATKINS. Not to my knowledge.
Senator MUSKIE. What we have involved here, of course, is serious implication for the economic well-being of a segment of the petroleum industry. The lead is pretty well concentrated in your industry. This could have a serious impact. I am not predicting it will, I am not prejudging the results of research but acting only on the evidence we now have there are certain indications that the rules may have serions economic implications on a segment of the American petroleum industry.
The language which I have just read is certainly susceptible to the interpretation that unless both parties to the contract agree that information shall be published that it won't be published. That is why I have raised the question publicly so that we can have a definite understanding as to whether or not that is what the contract means.
Dr. HIBBARD. May I comment here? Further on in paragraph 8 it
says “it is expressly agreed by both parties that the information
obtained hereunder is to be released publicly at the earliest time that it represents technically useful and valid findings.
Senator MuskIE. That is the language. Who decides, both of you together or the Bureau of Mines alone that it represents technically useful and valid findings?
Dr. HIBBARD. In my opinion this generally would be a joint decision but this information is being developed for public use. All of the research which is done with bureau funds or resources is made available to the public and I know of no one case where it has not been. Therefore, I anticipate no problem making this information available to the public at a time when it is technically
valid. I think that is the important thing: Senator Muske. Let me pose this practical illustration. Assuming you have reached the point in your study with respect to a given problem when representatives of the two parties are sitting across the table from each other and the Bureau of Mines representative raises the suggestion that maybe now is the time to publish the findings and the representative of the American Petroleum Institute takes issue with that. Out of the discussion which follows, perhaps because of variations in the persuasiveness and power of the two representatives
, the net result is not to publish the report. Is there likely to be in that situation an inhibiting factor that prompts the Bureau of Mines representative to agree with the representative of the American Petroleum Institute on that decision?
Dr. HIBBARD. Not that I am aware of. Certainly every joint renture which we have been involved in up to date we have published the information as timely and rapidly as we could. I know of no information in any of this work which has been held back. This particular research has not actually started yet so there is nothing more to publish than the fact that the research is being undertaken which we did promptly as soon as the agreement had been consummated. I anticipate no difficulty.
Senator MUSKIE. I think it would be reassuring if there could be an exchange of correspondence on this point designed to make it clear that any time the Bureau of Mines feels that the information developed in the course of the study ought to be made public that it is free to do so whether or not the American Petroleum Institute agrees.
I think that would be a very reassuring development because I think the language is ambiguous. I am not implying any improper motives to anybody at this point but I think questions like this are better raised publicly and answered publicly than be allowed to rest unanswered.
If there could be such an exchange of correspondence, at least to this one Senator it would be extremely reassuring. Incidentally you have said that the Public Health Service is cooperating in some of your research. Are any of those funds likely to be—to get involved in the research project which is subject to your agreement with the American Petroleum Institute?
Dr. HIBBARD. This is a separate research project undertaken for them and it is separate from the American Petroleum Research.
Senator MUSKIE. May I say I am happy to note this cooperative arrangement between the Bureau of Mines and the Public Health Service in this field. I think then it holds promise for real results pro