by Gary Jones
FLC Washington, DC Representative
Greetings from DC. The 109th Congress closed on December 8th (or very early on the 9th to be exact), with a great deal of unfinished business awaiting the 110th Congress when it convenes in January. As the year (and 109th Congress) comes to an end, I thought it might be instructive to highlight/review several outstanding items of interest to the FLC community—particularly those that the new Congress will (hopefully) take up as they begin work in the new year.
With the close of the fall session, only the Homeland Security and Defense budgets were funded for FY 2007. A continuing resolution is in place to fund all other government activity through February 15 at current 2006 levels. This would leave the next Congress the unenviable task of funding the 2007 budget—which of course began October 1, 2006—at the same time as the rollout of the 2008 budget (February 2007).
However, as reported in The Washington Post (December 12, 2006), "the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees announced [on December 11] that they would extend current levels until the 2008 fiscal year begins next October 1." The chairmen also noted that they "would place a moratorium on all earmarks until lobbying changes are enacted." Good or bad (depending onhow these decisions affect you), this is designed to allow those working under government funding to have a better picture how to plan for the coming year.
The impact on our community is mixed—those programs slotted for increased funding (e.g., the American Competitiveness Initiative agencies: NIST, NSF and DOE/Science) will most likely not receive the increases they were expecting, while those targeted for funding decreases (e.g., Commerce's Advanced Technology Program, and others) should have a reprieve.
Also, numerous authorizing legislative proposals sponsored over the past year have potential impact on the technology community in general. While I highlighted many of these in July, there have been a few changes (advances?) in several areas, three of which are noted below.
First, regarding what has been commonly referred to as competitiveness legislation, the multiple bills submitted over the past year have really coalesced around three primary bills: one in the Senate and two in the House. On the Senate side, the National Competitiveness Investment Act (NCIA) (S.3936) contains input from the three Senate committees having a significant role to play in S&T policy and responsible for much of the recent competitiveness legislation (Energy and Natural Resources; Commerce, Science and Transportation; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions). This bill addresses most of the recommendations of the National Academies' "Gathering Storm" report (see this column in the October 2005 FLC NewsLink) as well as responding to proposals made as part of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. If passed by the Senate, it could go to conference with the two House bills that came out of the House Science Committee this fall: the Research for Competitiveness Act (H.R.5356) and the Science and Mathematics Education and Competitiveness Act (H.R.5358), and possibly others—for a final competitiveness bill incorporating everything from basic research funding to STEM education.
All three bills had fairly strong bipartisan support, particularly on the Senate side—the greater challenge will be to bridge the gap between the more expansive Senate bill and the very narrowly defined House bills. Then, of course, the bills have to be funded.
Second, regarding intellectual property legislation, the most salient bill currently in process is the Patent Reform Act of 2006 (S.3818), introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee in August. As the press release notes, "[T]he main provisions … focus on increasing patent quality, increasing international harmonization, and decreasing unwarranted or abusive patent litigation." The bill tries to limit litigation by providing for a more robust post-grant review process and removing several underlying elements of the litigation system, as well as moving the U.S. to a first-to-file from a first-to-invent rule.
This bill is an attempt to jump-start a similar bill/effort languishing in the House since 2005. Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Leahy (D-VT), then-Chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, were co-sponsors. Senator Leahy is set to assume the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in January.
Third, regarding small business innovative research legislation, the Small Business Administration is up for reauthorization in 2008, and in fall 2006 both the Senate and House proposed reauthorization legislation. The Senate bill (S.3778), introduced in the Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee (SB&E), focuses on SBIR/STTR programs specifically, proposing to gradually increase the set-aside for the SBIR program to "no less than 5%" by 2011 and 0.6% immediately for the STTR program, effectively doubling the funding for both. There is also language in the bill clarifying the conditions upon which a federal lab can act as subcontractor to an SBIR awardee.
The bill did not move in the fall session, but with Senator Kerry (D-MA) set to take the chairmanship of the SB&E Committee, things could change.
Capitol Hill will be a different place starting in January, regardless of your perspective. The new Congress will have new leadership and a potentially different agenda regarding the many issues of importance to the FLC community. How these legislative proposals will fare in the new Congress is yet to be determined. One year ago, while still the minority party, the Democrats launched their Innovation Agenda. With the Democrats set to take control of both houses of Congress, it may be worth revisiting this document to get an idea of where their focus will be on these issues.
Gary can be reached at gkjones@federallabs.org.
