Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research and Development







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



The federal government spends approximately one third of its annual research and development
budget for intramural R&D to meet mission requirements in over 700 government laboratories
(including Federally Funded Research and Development Centers). The technology and expertise
generated by this endeavor may have application beyond the immediate goals or intent of
federally funded R&D. These applications can result from technology transfer, a process by
which technology developed in one organization, in one area, or for one purpose is applied in
another organization, in another area, or for another purpose. It is a way for the results of the
federal R&D enterprise to be used to meet other national needs, including the economic growth
that flows from new commercialization in the private sector; the government’s requirements for
products and processes to operate effectively and efficiently; and the demand for increased goods
and services at the state and local level.
Congress has established a system to facilitate the transfer of technology to the private sector and
to state and local governments. Despite this, use of federal R&D results has remained restrained,
although there has been a significant increase in private sector interest and activities over the past
several years. Critics argue that working with the agencies and laboratories continues to be
difficult and time-consuming. Proponents of the current effort assert that while the laboratories
are open to interested parties, the industrial community is making little effort to use them. At the
same time, State governments are increasingly involved in the process. At issue is whether
incentives for technology transfer remain necessary, if additional legislative initiatives are needed
to encourage increased technology transfer, or if the responsibility to use the available resources
now rests with the private sector.






Most Recent Developments.............................................................................................................1
Background and Analysis................................................................................................................2
Technology Transfer to Private Sector: Federal Interest.................................................................3
Technology Transfer to State and Local Governments: Rationale for Federal Activity..................4
Current Federal Efforts to Promote Technology Transfer...............................................................4
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer.........................................................5
P.L. 96-480, P.L. 99-502, and Amendments..............................................................................5
P.L. 100-418, Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act...........................................................7
Patent s ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Small Business Technology Transfer Program.......................................................................14
Further Considerations..................................................................................................................14
Legislation in the 110th Congress..................................................................................................16
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................18






Past Administrations have made expanded use of federal laboratories and industry-government
cooperation integral to efforts associated with technology development. In support of this
approach, Congress enacted various laws facilitating cooperative research and development
agreements (CRADAs) between federal agencies and the private sector, and increasing funding
for technology transfer activities included in the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the Department of Commerce. However, many of these th
efforts have been revisited since the 104 Congress, reflecting the then Republican majority’s
preferences for indirect measures such as tax policies, intellectual property rights, and antitrust
laws to promote technology development rather than direct federal funding of private sector
technology initiatives. While none of the relevant programs were terminated until ATP was
replaced by the Technology Innovation Program, several have seen significant decreases in
support.
Enacted in the 110th Congress, P.L. 110-5 provided FY2007 appropriations of $104.6 million for
MEP and $79 million for ATP. The President’s FY2008 budget requested a significant decrease in
support for manufacturing extension to $46.3 million and did not include funding for ATP. The
initial appropriations bill that passed the House, H.R. 3093, would have provided $108.8 million
for MEP and $93.1 million for ATP. The version of H.R. 3093 passed by the Senate would have
funded MEP at $110 million and ATP at $100 million ($30.8 million of which was to be directed
to programs in other federal agencies). The final FY2008 appropriations legislation, P.L. 110-161,
provides MEP with $89.6 million and replaces ATP with the Technology Innovation Program
(TIP) which is funded at $65.2 million (with an additional $5 million from FY2007 ATP
unobligated balances). P.L. 110-69, the America COMPETES Act, authorizes funding for NIST
programs through FY2010 and creates various new initiatives within the laboratory.
The Administration’s original FY2009 budget request included $4 million to terminate federal
support of the MEP program and contained no funding for TIP. On June 6, 2008, the President
submitted a series of amendments to his budget one of which reduced the amount for the MEP
program to $2 million. The FY2009 appropriations bill ordered reported from the House
Committee on Appropriations would finance MEP at $112 million while support for TIP would
total $65.2 million. S. 3182, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides
$110 million for manufacturing extension and $65 million for TIP.
Several initiatives detailed in the “American Competitiveness Initiative” announced by the
President in the 2006 State of the Union Address are included in bills before the current Congress.
The ACI proposed various innovation-related activities including increased basic research
funding, making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit, and improved math and
science education. S. 833, the Competitiveness Through Education, Technology, and Enterprise
Act of 2007, makes the research tax credit permanent, as does H.R. 2133, H.R. 2138, H.R. 2734,
H.R. 3907, H.R. 5105, H.R. 5481, and S. 2209. S. 41, the Research Competitiveness Act of 2007,
and H.R. 1712 also make the research credit permanent and create tax exempt facility bonds for
the development of research park facilities, among other things. H.R. 6049, as passed by the
House, and S. 2552 would extend the research credit through the end of 2008; S. 592 and S. 2884
extend it through 2012.





S. 1373 and H.R. 4250 would provide grants and loan guarantees for the development and
construction of science parks. Title VI of P.L. 100-229 establishes a program of grants to non-
profit institutions, state and local governments, cooperative extension services, or universities to
transfer energy efficient methods and technologies. S. 3078 creates a National Innovation Council
to coordinate federal innovation-related activities and promote state and local initiatives in this
area.

The federal government is estimated to have spent $137 billion in FY2007 on research and
development to meet the mission requirements of the federal departments and agencies.
Approximately one-third of this is for intramural research and development (R&D) by federal
laboratories (including support for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers). While
the major portion of this activity has been in the defense arena, government R&D has led to new
products and processes for the commercial marketplace including, but not limited to, antibiotics,
plastics, airplanes, computers, microwaves, and bioengineered drugs. Given the increasing
competitive pressures on U.S. firms in the international marketplace, proponents of technology
transfer argue that there are many other technologies and techniques generated in the federal
laboratory system which could have market value if further developed by the industrial
community. Similarly, the knowledge base created by the agencies’ R&D activities can serve as a
foundation for additional commercially relevant efforts in the private sector.
The movement of technology from the federal laboratories to industry and to state and local
governments is achieved through technology transfer. Technology transfer is a process by which
technology developed in one organization, in one area, or for one purpose is applied in another
organization, in another area, or for another purpose. In the defense arena it is often called “spin-
off.” Technology transfer can have different meanings in different situations. In some instances, it
refers to the transfer of legal rights, such as the assignment of patent title to a contractor or the
licensing of a government-owned patent to a private firm. In other cases, the transfer endeavor
involves the informal movement of information, knowledge, and skills through person-to-person
interaction. The crucial aspect in a successful transfer is the actual use of the product or process.
Without this, the benefits from more efficient and effective provision of goods and services are
not achieved. However, while the United States has perhaps the best basic research enterprise in
the world—as evidenced in part by the large number of Nobel Prizes awarded to American
scientists—other countries sometimes appear more adept at taking the results of this effort and
making commercially viable products to be sold in U.S. and world markets. (For further
discussion of innovation and economic growth, see CRS Report RL33528, Industrial
Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H.
Schacht.)
Despite the potential offered by the resources of the federal laboratory system, the
commercialization level of the results of federally funded research and development remained
low through the 1980s. Studies indicated that only approximately 10% of federally owned patents
were ever used. There were various reasons for this, including the fact that many of these
technologies and patents had no commercial application. A major factor in successful transfer is a
perceived market need for the technology or technique. However, because federal laboratory
R&D is generally undertaken to meet an agency’s mission or because there are insufficient
incentives for private sector research that the government deems in the national interest, decisions
reflect public sector, rather than commercial needs. Thus, transfer often depends on attempts to





ascertain commercial applications of technologies developed for government use—“technology
push”—rather than on “market pull.” In other words, a technology is developed and a use for it
established because the expertise exists rather than because it is perceived to be needed.
Additional barriers to transfer involve costs. Studies have estimated that research accounts for
approximately 25% of expenditures associated with bringing a new product or process to market.
Thus, while it might be advantageous for companies to rely on government-funded research, there
are still significant added costs of commercialization after the transfer of technology has
occurred. However, industry unfamiliarity with these technologies, the “not invented here”
syndrome, and ambiguities associated with obtaining title to or exclusive license for federally
owned patents also contribute to a limited level of commercialization. Complicating the issue is
the fact that the transfer of technology is a complex process that involves many stages and
variables. Often the participants do not know or understand each other’s work environment,
procedures, terminology, rewards, and constraints. The transfer of technology appears to be most
successful when it involves one-to-one interaction between committed individuals in the
laboratory and in industry or state and local government. “Champions” are generally necessary to
see a transfer through to completion because it is so often a time- and energy-consuming process.
Given this, technology transfer is best approached on a case-by-case basis that can take into
account the needs, operating methods, and constraints of the involved parties.


The federal interest in the transfer of technology from government laboratories to the private
sector is based on several factors. The government requires certain goods and services to operate.
Much of the research it funds is directed at developing the knowledge and expertise necessary to
formulate these products and processes. However, the government has neither the mandate nor
the capability to commercialize the results of the federal R&D effort. Technology transfer is a
mechanism to get federally generated technology and technical know-how to the business
community where it can be developed, commercialized, and made available for use by the public
sector.
Federal involvement in technology transfer also arises from an interest in promoting the
economic growth that is vital to the nation’s welfare and security. It is through further
development, refinement, and marketing that the results of research become diffused throughout
the economy and can generate growth. It is widely accepted that technological progress is
responsible for up to one-half the growth of the U.S. economy and is the principal driving force in
long-term economic growth and increases in our standard of living. Economic benefits of a
technology or technique accrue when a product, process, or service is brought to the marketplace
where it can be sold or used to increase productivity. When technology transfer is successful, new
and different products or processes become available to meet or induce market demand. Transfer
from the federal laboratories can result in substantial increases in employment and income
generated at the firm level.
Cooperation with the private sector provides a means for federal scientists and engineers to obtain
state-of-the-art technical information from the industrial community, which in various instances is
more advanced than that available in the government. Technology transfer is also a way to assist
companies that have been dependent on defense contracts and procurement to convert to





manufacturing for the civilian, commercial marketplace. Successful efforts range from advances
in the commercial aviation industry, to the development of a new technology for use in advanced
ceramics, to the evolution of the biotechnology sector.


The increasing demands on state and local governments to provide improved goods and services
have been accompanied by a recognition that expanded technological expertise can help meet
many of these needs. The transfer of technology and technical knowledge from government
laboratories to state and local jurisdictions can allow for additional use of ideas and inventions
that have been funded and created through federal R&D. Intergovernmental technology transfer
can also help state and local officials meet responsibilities imposed by federal legislation.
As state and local governments increasingly look for technological solutions, the concept of
“public technology”—the adaptation and utilization of new or existing technology to public
sector needs—has emerged. The application of technology to State and local services is a
complex and intricate procedure. In transferring technology from the federal laboratories, the
application often can be direct. At other times, alterations in technical products and processes may
be necessary for application in the state and local environment. However, this “adaptive
engineering” generally is not extensive or expensive and can be accomplished by federal
laboratory and state and local personnel working together.
State and local government concerns with regional economic growth also have focused attention
on technology transfer as a mechanism to increase private sector innovation related activities
within their jurisdiction. In order to develop and foster an entrepreneurial climate, many states
and localities are undertaking the support of programs that assist high technology businesses, and
that often use the federal laboratory system. State and local efforts to develop “incubator centers”
for small companies may rely on cooperation with federal laboratories, which supply technical
expertise to firms locating at the center. Other larger programs to promote innovation in the state,
such as the Ben Franklin Partnership in Pennsylvania, use the science and technology resources
of federal personnel. Additional programs have been created involving state universities, private
companies, and the federal laboratories, with each program geared to the specific needs and
desires of the participating parties. (For more discussion see CRS Report 98-859, State
Technology Development Strategies: The Role of High Tech Clusters, by Wendy H. Schacht.)


Over the years, several federal efforts have been undertaken to promote the transfer of technology
from the federal government to state and local jurisdictions and to the private sector. The primary
law affording access to the federal laboratory system is P.L. 96-480, the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-502), the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 101-418), the 1990 Department
of Defense (DOD) Authorization Act (P.L. 101-189), the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1991 (P.L. 101-510), the Technology Transfer Improvements and Advancement Act (P.L. 104-





113), and the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act (P.L. 106-404). Several practices have
been established and laws enacted that are aimed at encouraging the private sector to utilize the
knowledge and technologies generated by the federal R&D endeavor. These are discussed below.
One of the primary federal efforts to facilitate and coordinate the transfer of technology among
various levels of government and to the private sector is the Federal Laboratory Consortium for
Technology Transfer (FLC). The Consortium was originally established under the auspices of the
Department of Defense in the early 1970s to assist in transferring DOD technology to state and
local governments. Several years later, it was expanded to include other federal departments in a
voluntary organization of approximately 300 federal laboratories. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502) provided the FLC with a legislative mandate to operate and
required the membership of most federal laboratories. Today, over 600 laboratories are
represented.
The basic mission of the Federal Laboratory Consortium is to promote the effective use of
technical knowledge developed in federal departments and agencies by “networking” the various
member laboratories with other federal entities, with state, local, and regional governments, and
with private industry. To accomplish this, the Consortium establishes channels through which
user needs can be identified and addressed. It also provides a means by which federal technology
and expertise can be publicized and made available through individual laboratories to private
industry for further development and commercialization. Access to the resources of the full
federal laboratory system can be made through any laboratory representative, the FLC regional
coordinators, the Washington area representative, or by contacting the Chairman or Executive
Director.
The FLC itself does not transfer technology; it assists and improves the technology transfer
efforts of the laboratories where the work is performed. In addition to developing methods to
augment individual laboratory transfer efforts, the Consortium serves as a clearinghouse for
requests for assistance and will refer to the appropriate laboratory or federal department. The
work of the Consortium is funded by a set-aside of 0.008% of the portion of each agency’s R&D
budget used for the laboratories.
In 1980, the U.S. Congress enacted P.L. 96-480, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act. Recognizing the benefits to be derived from the transfer of technology, the law explicitly
states that:
It is the continuing responsibility of the federal government to ensure the full use of the
results of the Nations federal investment in research and development. To this end the
federal government shall strive where appropriate to transfer federally owned or originated
[non-classified] technology to state and local governments and to the private sector.
Prior to this law, technology transfer was not part of the mission requirements of the federal
departments and agencies, with the exception of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. This left laboratory personnel open to questions as to the suitability of their





transfer activities. However, P.L. 96-480 “legitimized” the transfer effort and mandated that
technology transfer be accomplished as an expressed part of each agency’s mission.
Section 11 created the mechanisms by which federal agencies and their laboratories can transfer
technology. Each department with at least one laboratory must make available not less than 0.5%
of its R&D budget for transfer activities, although this requirement can and has been waived. To
facilitate transfer from the laboratories, each one is required to establish an Office of Research
and Technology Applications (ORTA); laboratories with annual budgets exceeding $20 million
must have at least one full-time staff person for this office (although the latter provision can also
be waived). The function of the ORTA is to identify technologies and ideas that have potential for
application in other settings.
Additional incentives for the transfer and commercialization of technology are contained in
various amendments to Stevenson-Wydler. P.L. 99-502, the Federal Technology Transfer Act,
amends P.L. 96-480 to allow government-owned, government-operated laboratories (GOGOs) to
enter into cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) with universities and the
private sector. The authority to enter into these agreements was extended to government-owned,
contractor-operated laboratories (generally the laboratories of the Department of Energy) in the
FY1990 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 101-189). A CRADA is a specific legal document (not a
procurement contract) which defines the collaborative venture. It is intended to be developed at
the laboratory level, with limited agency review. In agencies which operate their own
laboratories, the laboratory director is permitted to make decisions to participate in CRADAs in
an effort to decentralize and expedite the technology transfer process. Generally, at agencies
which use contractors to run their laboratories, specifically DOE, the CRADA is to be approved
by headquarters. P.L. 106-398, however, allows the agency to define certain conditions under
which the CRADA may be approved by a laboratory itself rather than headquarters.
The work performed under a cooperative research and development agreement must be consistent
with the laboratory’s mission. In pursuing these joint efforts, the laboratory may accept funds,
personnel, services, and property from the collaborating party and may provide personnel,
services, and property to the participating organization. The government can cover overhead costs
incurred in support of the CRADA, but is expressly prohibited from providing direct funding to
the industrial partner. In GOGO laboratories, this support comes directly from budgeted R&D
accounts. Prior to the elimination of a line item in the budget to support non-defense energy
technology transfer, the Energy Department generally relied on a competitive selection process
run by headquarters to allocate funding specifically designated to cover the federal portion of the
CRADA. Now these efforts are to be supported through programmatic funds.
Under a CRADA, title to, or licenses for, inventions made by a laboratory employee may be
granted in advance to the participating company, university, or consortium by the director of the
laboratory. In addition, the director can waive, in advance, any right of ownership the government
might have on inventions resulting from the collaborative effort regardless of size of the
company. This diverges from other patent law which only requires that title to inventions made
under federal R&D funding be given to small businesses, not-for-profits, and universities. In all
cases, the government retains a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to
practice, or have practiced, the invention for its own needs.
Laboratory personnel and former employees are permitted to participate in commercialization
activities if these are consistent with the agencies’ regulations and rules of conduct. Federal
employees are subject to conflict of interest restraints. In the case of government-owned,





contractor-operated laboratories, P.L. 101-189 required the establishment of conflict of interest
provisions regarding CRADAs to be included in the laboratories’ operating contracts within 150
days of enactment of the law. Preference for cooperative ventures is given to small businesses,
companies which will manufacture in the United States, or foreign firms from countries that
permit American companies to enter into similar arrangements. According to the Department of
Commerce, between FY1999 and FY2003, approximately 2,800 - 3.000 traditional CRADAs
were active each year. During this time frame, between 700 - 950 new, traditional agreements
were initiated yearly (including NASA Space Act Agreements).
P.L. 99-502 provides for cash awards to federal laboratory personnel for activities facilitating
scientific or technological advancements which have either commercial value or contribute to the
mission of the laboratory and for the transfer of technology leading to commercialization. As an
additional incentive, federal employees responsible for an invention are to receive at least 15% of
royalties generated by the licensing of the patent associated with their work. The agencies may
establish their own royalty sharing programs within certain guidelines. If the government has the
right to an invention but chooses not to patent, the inventor, either as a current or former federal
employee, can obtain title subject to the above-mentioned licensing rights of the government.
To further facilitate the transfer process, a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY1991 (P.L. 101-510) amends Stevenson-Wydler allowing government agencies and
laboratories to develop partnership intermediary programs augmenting the transfer of laboratory
technology to the small business sector.
P.L. 104-113, the Technology Transfer Improvements and Advancement Act, clarifies existing
policy with respect to the dispensation of intellectual property under a CRADA by amending the
Stevenson-Wydler Act. Responding to criticism that ownership of patents is an obstacle to the
quick development of CRADAs, this bill guarantees an industrial partner the option to select, at
the minimum, an exclusive license for a field of use to the resulting invention. If the invention is
made solely by the private party, then they may receive the patent. However, the government
maintains a right to have the invention utilized for compelling public health, safety, or regulatory
reasons and the ability to license the patent should the industrial partner fail to commercialize the
invention.
In response to concerns over the development and application of new technology, the 1988
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act contained several provisions designed to foster
technology transfer. The law redesignated the National Bureau of Standards as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and mandated the establishment of (among other
things): (1) an Advanced Technology Program to encourage public-private cooperative efforts in
the development of industrial technology and to promote the use of NIST technology and
expertise; (2) Regional Manufacturing Technology Transfer Centers; and (3) a Clearinghouse on
State and local innovation related activities. The set-aside for operation of the Federal Laboratory
Consortium created in P.L. 99-502 was also increased from 0.005% of the laboratory R&D
budget to 0.008%.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) provided seed funding, matched by private-sector
investment, to companies or consortia of universities, industries, and government laboratories to
accelerate the development of generic technologies that have broad application across industries.
The first awards were made in 1991. As of the end of 2007, 824 projects had been funded





representing approximately $2.4 billion in federal dollars matched by $2.2 billion in financing
from the private sector.
The first four ATP competitions (through August 1994) were all general in nature. However, in
response to large increases in federal funding, NIST, in conjunction with industry, identified
various key areas for long-range support including information infrastructure for healthcare; tools
for DNA diagnostics; component-based software; manufacturing composite structures; computer-
integrated manufacturing for electronics; digital data storage; advanced vapor-compression
refrigeration systems; motor vehicle manufacturing technology; materials processing for heavy
manufacturing; catalysis and biocatalysis technologies; advanced manufacturing control systems;
digital video in information networks; engineering; photonics manufacturing; premium power;
microelectronics manufacturing infrastructure; selective-membrane platforms; and adaptive
learning systems. The general competition continued. Since FY1999, NIST dropped the focused
areas in favor of one competition open to all areas of technology. (For additional information see
CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology Program, by Wendy H. Schacht.)
Appropriations for the Advanced Technology Program included $36 million in FY1991, $48
million in FY1992, $67.9 million in FY1993, and $199.5 million in FY1994. Appropriations for
FY1995 expanded significantly to $431 million, but $90 million of this amount was rescinded by th
P.L. 104-6 as funding for ATP met with opposition in the 104 Congress. The initial House
budget proposal associated with the House Republican “Contract with America” would have
eliminated the Advanced Technology Program. The FY1996 appropriations bill that originally
passed Congress, H.R. 2076, was vetoed by the President, in part, because it offered no support
for ATP. The legislation that was finally signed into law, P.L. 104-134, funded the program at
$221 million. In FY1997, P.L. 104-208 provided $225 million in financing for ATP. P.L. 105-18
rescinded $7 million from this amount. The following year, P.L. 105-119 appropriated $192.5
million for ATP.
The Clinton Administration’s FY1999 budget proposed $259.9 million for ATP, an increase of

35%. While not providing such a large increase, P.L. 105-277 did fund ATP at $197.5 million, 3%


above the previous year. This reflected a $6 million rescission of “deobligated” funds resulting
from early termination of certain projects. For FY2000, the Administration requested support for
ATP at $238.7 million, an increase of 21% above earlier funding. The appropriation bill originally
passed by the House contained no funding for the program. The report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2670) stated that “... the program has not produced a body of evidence to overcome those
fundamental questions about whether the program should exist in the first place.” Yet P.L. 106-
113 provided $142.6 million for ATP, although this represented a 28% decrease over the earlier
fiscal year.
Former President Clinton’s FY2001 budget called for financing ATP at $175.5 million, 23%
above the prior year’s support. The original version of the appropriations bill passed by the House
again did not fund the program. However, P.L. 106-553 appropriated $145.7 million for ATP, an
increase of 2% from the previous funding level.
For FY2002, the Bush Administration’s budget proposal would have suspended support for all
new awards pending an evaluation of the program; $13 million would be made available to meet
financial commitments for on-going projects. H.R. 2500, as initially passed by the House,
contained no funding for new ATP grants but also provided $13 million to support prior project
commitments. The original version of H.R. 2500 passed by the Senate funded ATP at $204.3





million. The final legislation, P.L. 107-77, financed the program at $184.5 million, an increase of
almost 27% over the previous fiscal year.
In the FY2003 budget request, the Advanced Technology Program would have received $108
million, 35% below the FY2002 figure. No relevant appropriations legislation was enacted in the th

107 Congress. A series of Continuing Resolutions provided support at the FY2002 level until the th


108 Congress passed P.L. 108-7 which appropriated $178.8 million for the program in FY2003
(after a 0.65% across the board recision mandated by the legislation).
The President’s FY2004 budget would have provided $27 million for ATP to cover on-going
commitments; no new projects would be funded. Again, the appropriation bill initially passed by
the House contained no money for ATP. However, P.L. 108-199, the FY2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, provided $170.5 million for the program after a rescission mandated in the
bill. The following year, the Administration’s budget request and H.R. 4754, the appropriations
bill originally passed by the House, did not include funding for ATP. S. 2809, as reported to the
Senate by the Committee on Appropriations, would have provided $203 million for the program.
P.L. 108-447, the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, funds ATP at $136.5 million (after
several rescissions mandated in the legislation), a 20% decrease from the previous fiscal year.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget, and H.R. 2862, as initially passed by the House, did not
include support for the Advanced Technology Program. The version of H.R. 2862 originally
passed by the Senate would have provided $140 million for the program. The final FY2006
appropriation legislation, P.L. 109-108, finances ATP at $79 million (after mandated rescissions),

42% below the FY2005 funding level.


For FY2007, the Administration budget did not provide any support for ATP, nor did H.R. 5672,
the FY2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as
passed by the House on June 29, 2006 and as reported from the Senate Committee on th
Appropriations. While no final FY2007 appropriations legislation was enacted by the 109
Congress, ATP continued to be funded through February 15, 2007 at the FY2006 level by a series th
of continuing resolutions. Passed by the 110 Congress, P.L. 110-5 appropriated $79 million for
the program in FY2007.
The President’s FY2008 budget request did not include any support for ATP. The initial
appropriations bill passed by the House, H.R. 3093, would have provided $93.1 million for the
program. The version of H.R. 3093 that passed the Senate would have funded ATP at $100
million (with $30.8 million directed towards financing unrelated programs at the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the U.S. Marshals Service). In addition, single applicant ATP awards would
have been limited to companies that have revenues less than $1 billion.
The final FY2008 appropriations legislation, P.L. 110-161, replaces ATP with the Technology
Innovation Program (TIP) and provides $65.2 million in funding (with an additional $5 million
from FY2007 ATP unobligated balances). P.L. 110-69, the America COMPETES Act, creates the
new TIP initiative. While similar to ATP in the intent to promote high-risk R&D that would be of
broad-based economic benefit to the Nation, there are several differences in the operation of the
new activity. Funding under TIP is limited to small and medium-sized businesses whereas grants
under ATP were available to companies regardless of size. In addition, in the Advanced
Technology Program, joint ventures were required to include two separately owned for-profit
firms and could involve universities, government laboratories, and other research establishments
as participants in the project but not as recipients of the grant. In the TIP initiative, a joint venture





may involve two separately owned for-profit companies but may also be comprised of one small
or medium-sized firm and a university. A single company could receive up to $2 million for up to
three years under ATP; under TIP, the participating company (which must be a small or medium-
sized business) may receive up to $3 million for up to three years. In ATP, small and medium-
sized companies were not required to cost share (large firms provided 60% of the total cost of the
project) while in TIP there is a 50% cost sharing requirement which, again, only applies to the
small and medium-sized businesses that are eligible. There were no funding limits for the five-
year funding available for joint ventures under ATP; the TIP limits joint venture funding to $9
million for up to five years. The Advisory Board that was created to assist in the Advanced
Technology Program included industry representatives as well as federal government personnel
and representatives from other research organizations. The Advisory Board for the Technology
Innovation Program will be comprised of only private sector members.
The President’s FY2009 budget request does not include funding for TIP. The bill ordered
reported from the House Committee on Appropriations would provide $65.2 million for TIP while
S. 3182, as reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, funds the program at $65
million.
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 100-418) also created a program of regional
centers to assist small manufacturing companies’ use of knowledge and technology developed
under the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other federal
agencies. Federal funding for the centers is matched by non-federal sources including state and
local governments and industry. Originally, seven Regional Centers for the Transfer of
Manufacturing Technology were selected and are operational: the Great Lakes Manufacturing
Technology Center at the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program in Ohio; the Northeast
Manufacturing Technology Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York (now
called the New York Manufacturing Extension Partnership); the South Carolina Technology
Transfer Cooperative based at the University of South Carolina in Columbia; the Midwest
Manufacturing Technology Center at the Industrial Technology Institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
the Mid-American Manufacturing Technology Center at the Kansas Technology Enterprise
Corporation of Topeka; the California Manufacturing Technology Center at El Camino College in
Torrance; and the Upper Midwest Manufacturing Technology Center in Minneapolis.
The original program expanded in 1994 creating the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
to meet new and growing needs of the community. In a more varied approach, the Partnership
involves both large centers and smaller, more dispersed organizations sometimes affiliated with
larger centers. Also included is the NIST State Technology Extension Program which provides
states with grants to develop the infrastructure necessary to transfer technology from the federal
government to the private sector (an effort which was also mandated by P.L. 100-418) and a
program that electronically ties the disparate parties together along with other federal, state, local,
and academic technology transfer organizations. There are now centers in all 50 states and Puerto
Rico. Since the program was created in 1989, awards made by NIST for extension activities
resulting in the creation of approximately 400 regional offices. [It should be noted that the
Department of Defense also funded 36 centers through its Technology Reinvestment Project
(TRP) in FY1994 and FY1995. When the TRP was terminated, NIST took over support for 20 of
these programs in FY1996 and financed the remaining ones during FY1997.]
Funding for this program was $11.9 million in FY1991, $15.1 million in FY1992, and $16.9
million in FY1993. The FY1994 appropriation for the expanded Manufacturing Technology
Partnerships was $30.3 million. P.L. 103-317 appropriated $90.6 million for this effort in





FY1995, although P.L. 104-19 rescinded $16.3 million from this appropriation. For FY1996, H.R.
2076, which passed the Congress but was vetoed by the President, included appropriations of $80
million for MEP. This amount was retained in the final legislation, P.L. 104-134. P.L. 104-208
appropriated $95 million for manufacturing extension in FY1997, while temporarily lifting the
six-year limit on federal support for individual centers. For FY1998, P.L. 105-119 provided
$113.5 million in funding and permitted government support for centers to be extended, for
periods of one year and at a rate of one-third the centers annual cost, if a positive evaluation was
received. The following year, P.L. 105-277 appropriated $106.8 million for the program,
reflecting a reduced federal financial commitment as centers mature, not a decrease in program
support. In addition, the Technology Administration Act of 1998, P.L. 105-309, permitted the
federal government to fund centers at one-third the cost after the six years if a positive
independent evaluation is made every two years. In FY2000, $104.2 million (after a mandated
rescission) was appropriated for MEP by P.L. 106-113. The next year, P.L. 106-553 provided
$105.1 million for manufacturing extension; for FY2002, P.L. 107-77 funded MEP at $106.5
million.
The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget proposed an 89% decrease in funding for MEP to $13
million. According to the budget document, “ ... consistent with the program’s original design,
the President’s budget recommends that all centers with more than six years experience operate
without federal contribution.” A series of Continuing Resolutions financed the activity at the th
FY2002 level until the 108 Congress enacted P.L. 108-7 which appropriates $105.9 million for
FY2003 (after a mandated rescission). The President’s FY2004 budget included another cut in
support for MEP, proposing $12.6 million to support those centers that have not reached six years
of federal financing. H.R. 2799, the FY2004 appropriations bill, as initially passed by the House,
financed the Partnership at $39.6 million. This bill was incorporated into H.R. 2673, which was
signed into law as P.L. 108-199, the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The legislation
funded MEP at $38.7 million after a mandated rescission contained in the bill.
For FY2005, the Bush Administration’s budget included $39.2 million for MEP. H.R. 4754, the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill originally passed by the House, would have financed
manufacturing extension at $106 million. S. 2809, reported to the Senate by the Committee on
Appropriations, would have provided $112 million to “fully fund” existing centers and to provide
additional assistance to small and rural States. The FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L.
108-447, restored earlier cuts to the program and financed MEP at $107.5 million after several
rescissions mandated by the legislation.
In the President’s FY2006 budget proposal, support for manufacturing extension would have been
reduced to $46.8 million, 63% below the previous fiscal year. H.R. 2862, as originally passed by
both the House and the Senate, would have funded the program at $106 million. After mandated
rescissions, MEP was appropriated $104.6 million by P.L. 109-108.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget provided $46.3 million for MEP. The FY2007 th
appropriations legislation passed by the House during the 109 Congress, H.R. 5672, funded the
program at $92 million. The version of H.R. 5672 reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations included $106 million for manufacturing extension. While no final FY2007 th
appropriations legislation was enacted during the 109 Congress, the program was funded
through February 15, 2007 by a series of continuing resolutions. P.L. 110-5, passed during the th

110 Congress, provides $104.6 million in FY2007 appropriations for MEP.





The FY2008 budget proposed by the President included $46.3 million for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, a significant decrease in funding from the current fiscal year. The initial
appropriations legislation passed by the House, H.R. 3093, would have provided $108.8 million
for MEP, while the version of the bill passed by the Senate would have financed the program at
$110 million. P.L. 110-161, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, funds MEP at $89.6
million.
The Administration’s original FY2009 budget request provides $4 million for MEP to close out
the federally funded portion of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. Amendments
proposed in June would reduce this funding to $2 million. The bill ordered reported from the
House Committee on Appropriations would finance the program at $122 million; S. 3182, as
reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $110 million for MEP.
P.L. 110-69, the America COMPETES Act, authorizes a new program of partnerships between
industry and other educational or research institutions to develop new manufacturing processes,
techniques, or materials. In addition, a manufacturing fellowship program would be created with
stipends available for post-doctoral work at NIST. These activities differ from the established
MEP effort where no new manufacturing research is conducted as existing manufacturing
technology is applied to the needs of small and medium-sized firms. (For additional information
see CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, by
Wendy H. Schacht.)
The patent system was created to promote innovation. Based on Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution which states: “The Congress Shall Have Power ... To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ... ”, the patent system encourages innovation
by simultaneously protecting the inventor and fostering competition. Originally, it provided the
inventor with a lead time of 17 years (from the date of issuance) to develop his idea,
commercialize, and thereby realize a return on his initial investment. Today, in response to the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the term of the patent has been changed to 20 years from date of
filing. The process of obtaining a patent places the idea in the public domain. As a disclosure
system, the patent can, and generally does, stimulate other firms or inventors to invent “around”
existing patents to provide parallel technical developments or meet similar market needs.
Ownership of patents derived from research and development performed under federal funding
affects the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to the private sector. Generally, the
government retains title to these inventions and can issue to companies either an exclusive license
or, more commonly, a nonexclusive license. However, it is argued that without title (or at least an
exclusive license) to an invention and the protection it conveys, a company will not invest the
additional time and money necessary for commercialization. This contention is supported by the
fact that, although a portion of ideas patented by the federal government have potential for further
development, application, and marketing, only about 10% of these are ever used in the private
sector. However, there is no universal agreement on this issue. It also is asserted that title should
remain in the public sector where it is accessible to all interested parties since federal funds were
used to finance the work.
Despite the disagreements, the Congress has accepted to some extent the proposition that vesting
title to the contractor will encourage commercialization. P.L. 96-517, Amendments to the Patent





and Trademark Laws (commonly known as the Bayh-Doyle Act), provides, in part, for
contractors to obtain title if they are small businesses, universities, or not-for-profit institutions.
Certain rights are reserved for the government and these organizations are required to
commercialize within a predetermined and agreed-on time. (For more information see CRS
Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology, by Wendy H. Schacht.) Yet it continues to be argued that
patent exclusivity is important for both large and small firms. In a February 1983 memorandum
concerning the vesting of title to inventions made under federal funding, President Reagan
ordered all agencies to treat, as allowable by law, all contractors regardless of size as prescribed
in P.L. 96-517. This, however, does not have a legislative basis.
Further changes in the patent laws made by the enactment of P.L. 98-620 also affect the transfer
of technology from federal laboratories to the private sector. In a provision that was designed to
increase interaction and cooperation between government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO)
laboratories and private industry in the transfer of technology, Title V permits decisions to be
made at the laboratory level as to the award of licenses for laboratory generated patents. The
contractor is also permitted by this legislation to receive patent royalties for use in additional
research and development, for awards to individual inventors on staff, or for education. A cap
exists on the amount of the royalty returning to the laboratory so as not to distort the agency’s
mission and congressionally mandated R&D agenda. However, the creation of discretionary
funds gives laboratory personnel added incentive to encourage and complete technology transfers.
P.L. 98-620 also permits private companies, regardless of size, to obtain exclusive license for the
full life of the government patent. Prior restrictions on large firms allowed exclusive license for
only 5 of the (then) 17 years of the patent. The law permits those government laboratories that are
run by universities or nonprofit institutions to retain title to inventions made in their institution
(within certain defined limitations). Federal laboratories operated by large companies are not
included in this provision.
The Federal Technology Transfer Act and the FY1990 DOD authorization gives all companies
(not just small businesses, universities, and nonprofits) the right to retain title to inventions
resulting from research performed under cooperative R&D agreements with government
laboratories. If this occurs, the federal government retains a royalty-free license to use these
patents. In addition, the Federal Technology Act states that the government agencies may retain a
portion of royalty income rather than returning it to the Treasury. After payment of the prescribed
amount to the inventor, the agencies must transfer the balance of the total to their government-
operated laboratories, with the major portion distributed to the laboratory where the invention was
made. The laboratory may keep all royalties up to 5% of their annual budget plus 25% of funds in
excess of the 5% limit. The remaining 75% of the excess returns to the Treasury. Funds retained
by the laboratory are to be used for expenses incurred in the administration and licensing of
inventions; to reward laboratory personnel; to provide for personnel exchanges between
laboratories; for education and training consistent with the laboratories’ and agencies’ missions;
or for additional transfer.
P.L. 106-404, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, signed into law on November 1,
2000, made alterations in current practices concerning patents held by the government to make it
easier for federal agencies to license such inventions. The law amends P.L. 98-480 and P.L. 96-
517 to decrease the time necessary to obtain an exclusive or partially exclusive license on
federally owned patents. Previously, agencies were required to publicize the availability of
technologies for three months using the Federal Register and then provide an additional 60 day





notice of intent to license by an interested company. The new law shortens the period to 15 days
in recognition of the ability of the Internet to offer widespread notification and the time
constraints faced by industry in commercialization activities. Certain rights would be retained by
the government. The legislation also allows licenses for existing government-owned inventions to
be included in CRADAs.
The CREATE Act, P.L. 108-453, makes changes in the patent laws to promote cooperative
research and development among universities, government, and the private sector. The legislation
amends section 103(c) of title 25, United States Code, such that certain actions between
researchers under a joint research agreement will not preclude patentability. (For more detail see
CRS Report RS21882, Collaborative R&D and the Cooperative Research and Technology
Enhancement (CREATE) Act, by Wendy H. Schacht.)
P.L. 102-564 created a three-year pilot program designed to facilitate the commercialization of
university, nonprofit, and federal laboratory R&D by small companies. The Small Business
Technology Transfer program (STTR) provides funding for research proposals which are
developed and executed cooperatively between a small firm and a scientist in a research
organization and fall under the mission requirements of the federal funding agency. Up to
$100,000 in Phase I financing is available for one year to test the viability of the concept. Phase II
awards of $500,000 may be made for two years to perform the research. Funding for
commercialization of the results is expected from the private sector. Financial support for this
effort comes from a phased-in set-aside of the R&D budgets of departments which spend over $1
billion per year on research and development. Originally set to expire at the end of FY1996, the
program was extended one year. P.L. 105-135 reauthorized funding through FY2001, while P.L.
107-50 extended the STTR program through FY2009. The set-aside used to fund the activity was
increased to 0.3% in FY2004. In addition, the amount of money available for individual Phase II
grants increased from $500,000 to $750,000. (For additional information see CRS Report 96-402,
Small Business Innovation Research Program, by Wendy H. Schacht and CRS Report RS 22865,
The Small Business Innovation Research Program: Reauthorization Efforts, by Wendy H.
Schacht.)

The federal laboratories have received a mandate to transfer technology. This, however, is not the
same as a mandate to help the private sector in the development and commercialization of
technology for the marketplace. While the missions of the government laboratories are often
broad, direct assistance to industry is not included, with the exception of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. The laboratories were created to perform the R&D necessary to meet
government needs, which typically are not consistent with the demands of the marketplace.
The missions of the federal laboratories are under review, due, in part, to budget constraints and
the changing world order. National security is now being redefined to include economic well-
being in addition to weapons superiority. The laboratories which have contributed so much to the
defense enterprise are being re-evaluated. These discussions provide an opportunity to debate
whether the mandate of the federal R&D establishment should include expanded responsibilities
for assistance to the private sector. Whether or not the missions of the U.S. government





laboratories are changed to include expanded assistance to industry, there are various initiatives
which may facilitate the technology transfer process under the laboratories’ current
responsibilities. These include making the work performed in government institutions more
relevant to industry through augmented cooperative R&D, increased private sector involvement
early in the R&D efforts of the laboratories, and expanded commercialization activities.
Because a significant portion of the laboratories are involved in defense research, questions arise
as to whether or not the technologies in these institutions can be transferred in such a way as to be
useful to commercial companies. In addition, the selection of one company over another to be
involved in a transfer or in a cooperative R&D agreement raises issues of fairness and equity of
access, as well as conflict of interest. And, while it is virtually impossible to prevent the flow of
scientific and technical information abroad, there is ongoing interest in the extent of foreign
access to the federal laboratory establishment. How these concerns are addressed may be
fundamental to the success of U.S. technology transfer.
Over the past 25 years, the Congress has enacted various laws designed to facilitate cooperative
R&D between and among government, industry, and academia. These laws include (but are not
limited to) tax credits for industrial payments to universities for the performance of R&D,
changes in the antitrust laws as they pertain to cooperative research and joint manufacturing, and
improved technology transfer from federal laboratories to the private sector. The intent behind
these legislative initiatives is to encourage collaborative ventures and thereby reduce the risks and
costs associated with R&D as well as permit work to be undertaken that crosses traditional
boundaries of expertise and experience leading to the development of new technologies and
manufacturing processes for the marketplace.
Since the 104th Congress, the perspectives on joint R&D, technology transfer, and cooperative
research and development agreements appear mixed. The results of legislative activity are open to
discussion. In the recent past, both national political parties have supported measures to facilitate
technological advancement. There are indications that the congressional majority favors
refocusing federal support for basic research as well as indirect measures to encourage
technology development in the private sector. CRADAs, in particular, are a means to take this
government-funded basic research from the federal laboratory system and move it to the
industrial community for commercialization to meet both agency mission requirements and other
national needs associated with the economic growth which comes from new products and
processes. It should also be recognized that the government is expressly prohibited from
providing direct financial support to partners in the cooperative venture under a CRADA. Thus, it
appears that this approach may meet the criteria expressed as acceptable to the Congress. While
the Advanced Technology Program faced much opposition in the House, the program continued
to be funded, although at decreased levels until FY2008 when it was replaced by the Technology
Innovation Program. Recently, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership had its budget cut, but th
these cuts were restored the following fiscal year with the support of the Congress. As the 110
Congress continues to make decisions concerning funding for R&D, the role of the federal
government in technology transfer, technology development, and commercialization might be
expected to be explored further.






P.L. 110-69 (H.R. 2272)
America COMPETES Act. Title III authorizes funding for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) through 2010 and creates several new manufacturing R&D programs in that
organization. Funding for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account within
NIST is authorized at $502.1 million for FY2008, $541.9 million for FY2009, and $584.8 for
FY2010. Support for construction and maintenance would be authorized at $150.9 million for
FY2008, $86.4 million for FY2009, and $49.7 million for FY2010. Authorization of
appropriations for Industrial Technology Services programs within NIST would include $210
million ($100 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and $110 million for MEP)
for FY2008, $253.5 million ($131.5 million for TIP and $122 million for MEP) for FY2009, and
$272.3 million ($140.5 million for TIP and $131.8 million for MEP) for FY2010. Among the new
programs established within NIST would be a Technology Innovation Program (to replace the
Advanced Technology Program), collaborative manufacturing research pilot grants, a
manufacturing fellowship program, and a manufacturing research database. Introduced on May

10, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology. Passed House on May 21,


2007 and received in the Senate on May 22, 2007. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Senate struck out all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S.
761. Passed Senate, with the amendment, on July 19, 2007. Conference held and conference
report agreed to on July 31, 2007. House and Senate agreed to conference report on August 2,

2007. Signed into law by the President on August 9, 2007.


P.L. 110-161 (H.R. 2764)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008. Appropriates $89.6 million for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership and $65.2 million for the Technology Innovation Program which replaces
the Advanced Technology Program (with an additional $5 million from FY2007 ATP unobligated
balances), among other things. Introduced June 18, 2007; referred to the House Committee on
Appropriations. Passed House on June 22, 2007; received in Senate the same day and referred to
the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, on June 28, 2007. Passed Senate,
amended, on September 6, 2007. Signed into law by the President on December 26, 2007.
P.L. 110-229 (S. 2739)
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. Title VI creates a program of grants to non-profit
institutions, state and local governments, cooperative extension services, or universities to
transfer energy efficient methods and technologies. Introduced in the Senate on March 10, 2008.
Passed the Senate without amendment on April 10, 2008. Passed the House on April 29, 2008.
Signed into law by the President on May 8, 2008.
H.R. 1712 (Johnson, E. B.)
The Research and Development Tax Credit Act of 2007. Makes the research tax credit permanent
and allows for the issuance of tax exempt facility bonds for research park facilities used for
research and experimentation, among other things. Introduced March 27, 2007; referred to the
House Committee on Ways and Means.





H.R. 2133 (Allen)
Small Business Investment and Promotion Act of 2007. Makes the research tax credit permanent,
among other things. Introduced May 8, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Ways and
Means.
H.R. 2138 (Levin)
Investment in America Act of 2007. Makes the research tax credit permanent, among other things.
Introduced May 3, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 2734 (Walberg)
Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007. Makes the research tax credit permanent, among other
things. Introduced June 14, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 3907 (Murphy, C.)
Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007. Makes the research tax credit permanent, among other
things. Introduced October 18, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 5105 (Dreier)
Fair and Simple Tax Act of 2008. Makes the research tax credit permanent, among other things.
Introduced January 23, 2008; referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 5681(McNerney)
Innovation Tax Credit Act of 2008. Revises the tax credit for increased research activities and
makes it permanent, among other things. Introduced April 2, 2008; referred to the House
Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 6049 (Rangel)
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. Extends the research tax credit through the end
of 2008, among other things. Introduced May 14, 2008; referred to the House Committee on
Ways and Means. Reported, amended, from the House Committee on Ways and Means on May

20, 2008. Passed the House on May 21, 2008.


S. 41 (Baucus)
Research Competitiveness Act of 2007. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to make the research
and experimentation tax credit permanent. Among other things, this bill would allow the issuance
of tax exempt facility bonds for research park facilities used for research and experimentation.
Introduced January 4, 2007; referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
S. 592 (Collins)
GoMe Act. Extends the research tax credit through 2012, among other things. Introduced
February 14, 2007; referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.





S. 833 (Coleman)
COMPETE Act of 2007. Makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, among
other things. Introduced March 9, 2007; referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
S. 1373 (Pryor)/H.R. 4250 (Wilson)
Building a Stronger America Act. Provides for grants and loan guarantees for the development
and construction of science parks, among other things. Introduced May 11, 2007; referred to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held by the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation on October 18, 2007. H.R. 4250
introduced November 15, 2007; referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
S. 2209 (Hatch)
Research Credit Improvement Act of 2007. Simplifies the research tax credit and makes it
permanent, among other things. Introduced October 19, 2007; referred to the Senate Committee
on Finance.
S. 2552 (Snowe)
Small Business Stimulus Act of 2008. Extends the research tax credit through the end of 2008.
Introduced January 24, 2008; referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
S. 2884 (Collins)
Research and Development Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2008. Revises the tax credit for
increased research activities and extends the credit through 2012, among other things. Introduced
April 17, 2008; referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
S. 3078 (Collins)
National Innovation and Job Creation Act of 2008. Establishes a National Innovation Council to
coordinate federal innovation policy and provide support for state and local initiatives in this area.
Provides funding for cluster development activities and information dissemination, among other
things. Introduced June 3, 2008; referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
wschacht@crs.loc.gov, 7-7066