139 



But making it a substantially longer time than that would only 

 be effective if in fact patent enforcement regulations came on line 

 and 



Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, up until now, patent applications 

 haven't been published in the United States until the patent is ac- 

 tually issued. 



Some of us sort of look at it and think that maybe if foreign in- 

 terests are stealing American ideas already, to insist that the idea 

 be published prior to the actual issuance of the patient may indeed 

 be some encouragement to somebody overseas to steal that. 



But my time is elapsed and it seems a little common-sensical to 

 me. 



Thank you very much. 



Chairman Walker. Mr. Tanner? 



Mr. Tanner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



No, it's not. Reverend. 



[Laughter.] 



It's not. Thank goodness. I feel like I've been sort of let out of 

 jail, don't you? 



Chairman Walker. That's right. 



Mr. Tanner. We spent a lot of time in this room in the last ten 

 days. 



I want to thank the panel for being here and I appreciate what 

 all you've had to say. I would like to ask a couple of questions. 



One, the statement from the report about the purpose of feder- 

 ally-funded R&D, I think I'd like to ask for an expansion of what 

 should be the purpose of R&D, other than just research for the 

 sake of research, number one. 



Number two, in your report back in 1992, the NAS Committee 

 on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy produced this report and 

 called, "The Government Role in Civilian Technology — Building a 

 New Alliance," and so forth. 



And in that 1992 report, they called for APRA's role in dual-use 

 technology development being reaffirmed and the scope of selected 

 mission agency R&D programs enlarged to include pre-commercial 

 products. 



It said at that time, ATP program has a promising start, al- 

 though past budgets were insufficient to have a significant impact, 

 and so forth. 



And now we see that in the 1995 report, there is pretty short 

 shrift given to some of these programs and the report itself, if read 

 in total, is skeptical, I would say, or my characterization, about 

 these programs. 



I'd like to know what has changed since 1992 and why you feel 

 that the ATP program and some of the efforts to get some of this 

 raw research to a situation where it can be transferred to the pri- 

 vate sector for commercialization, is less important maybe than it 

 was in 1992? 



Dr. Press. Let me start with a response. 



The country is different today than in 1992. Both parties are 

 committed to deficit reduction. As I said before, the discretionary 

 budget will be under severe constraints. And so that's the time to 

 evaluate all of the possibilities for R&D funding to see which is the 



