Posts Tagged: "Senate Armed Services Committee"

Capitol Hill Roundup

This week is a very busy one on Capitol Hill where hearings on various subjects related to technology and innovation are concerned. The House of Representatives will hold hearings on Chinese threats in innovation supremacy as well as nuclear energy and the American Innovation Act of 2018. The Senate will host hearings focused on quantum information science, consumer data privacy and reducing health care costs through innovation. Both houses will hold hearings to look at activities going on at the nation’s space exploration agency, NASA.

Proposal from Senator King Won’t Reduce Drug Prices, Just Innovation

Many were stunned to learn that Senator Angus King (I-ME) included language undermining the Bayh-Dole Act in the report of the Senate Armed Services Committee as it approved the National Defense Authorization Act. The the language “directs” the Department of Defense (DOD) to issue compulsory licenses under Bayh-Dole “whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical technology is higher in the U.S. than the median price charged in the seven largest economies that have a per capita income at least half the per capita income of the U.S.” The provision gives the Department no discretion— it must comply. Apparently no one bothered to check with DOD or anyone familiar with the law to discover that this language incorporates a long discredited theory of how Bayh-Dole operates, or of the significant damage it would do to the development of badly needed medicines and the U.S. economy. The bill is headed to the full Senate for consideration. So before that happens, let’s consider why this is such a bad idea.

Senator McCain says U.S. national security depends on access to innovation

Senator McCain’s remarks related to defense acquisition reform generally, but more specifically related to the need for the Department of Defense to streamline acquisition of new, innovative technologies. McCain told the audience that ”our Defense Department has grown larger but less capable, more complex but less innovative, more proficient at defeating low-tech adversaries but more vulnerable to high-tech ones.” Indeed, with an agency as large as the Department of Defense, a woefully inadequate response to technological advances and adoption of cutting edge innovation should be anticipated.