89–006 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–121 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURING LEADERSHIP ACT 

JUNE 19, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, from the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2397] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 2397) to amend the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act to make changes to the implementation of the network for manufacturing innovation, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 5 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 5 

IV. Committee Hearings ................................................................................... 6 

V. Committee Consideration and Votes ......................................................... 6 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 11 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) .................................. 11 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 12 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 12 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 12 

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 14 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 14 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 14 

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15 

XV. Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................... 15 

XVI. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 15 

XVII. Applicability to the Legislative Branch ..................................................... 15 

XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 15 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 15 

XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 31 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Manufacturing Leadership Act’’. 

SEC. 2. CHANGES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION. 

Section 34 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 

278s) is amended—— 

(1) in subsection (a)—— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Network for Manufacturing Innovation 

Program’’ and inserting ‘‘Manufacturing USA Program’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (2)— 

(i) in subparagraph (G), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(ii) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(I) to contribute to the development of regional manufacturing innovation clusters across the Nation.’’; 

(2) in subsection (c)—— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ each place it appears in subparagraph (C) and (D) and inserting ‘‘agency head’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2)—— 

(i) by striking subparagraph (E); 

(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) as clauses 

(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively, and moving the margins of such 

clauses (as so redesignated) two ems to the right; 

(iii) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so redesignated), by striking ‘‘Activities of a center for manufacturing innovation may include’’ 

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—Activities of a center for manufacturing innovation shall include’’; 

(iv) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by inserting before the period 

at the end the following: ‘‘addressing workforce needs through training 

and education programs at all appropriate education levels’’; 

(v) in clause (iii), as so redesignated, by inserting before the period 

at the end the following: ‘‘, as appropriate’’; 

(vi) by inserting after clause (iv) (as so redesignated) the following: 

‘‘(v) Development of roadmaps with respect to technology areas being 

pursued by that center for manufacturing innovation that take into account the research and development undertaken at other centers for 

manufacturing innovation and Federal agencies with respect to such 

areas.’’; and 

(vii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Activities of a center for manufacturing innovation may include such other activities as the agency head, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to, 

or are affected by, advanced manufacturing, considers consistent with the 

purposes described in subsection (a)(2).’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) APPLICATION.—Effective beginning on the date of the enactment of 

the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, a manufacturing center shall 

be subject to subsections (a)(2), (c), and (d) in the same manner and to the 

same extent as such provisions apply to a center for manufacturing innovation established pursuant to this section if such center—— 

‘‘(i)(I) is, as of such date of enactment, considered a center for manufacturing innovation under subparagraph (A) or recognized as a center 

for manufacturing innovation under subparagraph (B); and 

‘‘(II) as of such date of enactment, receives Federal financial assistance under subsection (d) or otherwise consistent with the purposes of 

this section; or 

‘‘(ii) is under pending agency review for such recognition as of such 

date of enactment.’’; 

(3) in subsection (d)—— 

(A) in paragraph (1)—— 

(i) by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘agency head’’; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘for a period of not less than 5 and not more than 

7 years’’ after ‘‘financial assistance’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘agency head’’; 

(C) in paragraph (4)—— 

(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) COMPETITIVE, MERIT REVIEW.—In awarding financial assistance 

under paragraph (1), the agency head shall—— 

‘‘(i) use a competitive, merit review process that includes peer review 

by a diverse group of individuals with relevant expertise from both the 

private and public sectors; and 

‘‘(ii) ensure that the technology focus of a center for manufacturing 

innovation does not substantially duplicate the technology focus of any 

other center for manufacturing innovation.’’; 

(ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ and inserting 

‘‘agency head’’; 

(iii) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows: 

‘‘(C) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY.—For each award of financial assistance under paragraph (1), the 

agency head shall develop and implement metrics-based performance standards to assess the effectiveness of activities funded in making progress toward the purposes of the Program.’’; 

(iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘the Secretary shall’’ and all 

that follows through ‘‘collaborate’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘agency 

head, in coordination with the National Program Office, as appropriate, 

shall collaborate’’; and 

(v) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘agency head’’; and 

(D) in paragraph (5)—— 

(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) TERM OF AWARD.—— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), an award made to a center 

for manufacturing innovation may be renewed for an additional period 

not to exceed the duration of the original funding award, subject to a 

rigorous merit review. In awarding additional funds, the agency head 

shall consider the extent to which the center has made progress in 

achieving the purposes described in subsection (a) and carrying out the 

activities specified in subsection (c)(2). 

‘‘(ii) EXISTING CENTERS.—Notwithstanding clause (i), a center already 

in existence or undergoing a renewal process on the date of enactment 

of the American Manufacturing Leadership Act—— 

‘‘(I) may continue to receive support for the duration of the original funding award beginning on the date of establishment of that 

center; and 

‘‘(II) shall be eligible for renewal of that funding pursuant to 

clause (i).’’; and 

(ii) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking ‘‘Secretary’’ each place 

it appears and inserting ‘‘agency head’’; 

(4) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows: 

‘‘(e) GRANT PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES FOR CENTERS FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING.—The Secretary may award 

grants on a competitive basis to centers of manufacturing innovation that are no 

longer recognized as such under subsection (c)(3)(C) to carry out workforce development, outreach to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, and other activities 

that—— 

‘‘(1) are determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest; and 

‘‘(2) are unlikely to receive private sector financial support.’’; 

(5) in subsection (f)—— 

(A) in paragraph (2)—— 

(i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(G) to work with non-sponsoring Federal agencies to explore and develop 

options for sponsoring centers for manufacturing innovation at such agencies; 

‘‘(H) to work with sponsoring Federal agencies to develop and implement 

network-wide performance goals with measurable targets and timelines; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(I) to help develop pilot programs that may be implemented by the centers for manufacturing innovation to address specific purposes of the Program, including to accelerate technology transfer to the private sector; and 

‘‘(J) to identify and disseminate best practices for workforce education 

and training across centers for manufacturing innovation and further enhance collaboration among centers for manufacturing innovation in developing and implementing such practices.’’; and 

(B) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.—The Secretary 

shall ensure that the National Program Office incorporates the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership into Program planning to ensure—— 

‘‘(A) significant outreach to, participation of, and engagement of smalland medium-sized manufacturers in centers for manufacturing innovation 

across the entirety of the manufacturing supply chain; and 

‘‘(B) that the results of the Program, including technologies developed by 

the Program, reach small- and medium-sized manufacturers and that such 

entities have access to technical assistance, as appropriate, in deploying 

those technologies.’’; 

(6) in subsection (g)—— 

(A) in paragraph (1)(A)—— 

(i) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and all that follows through ‘‘report 

to the Secretary’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Each agency head shall 

require each recipient of financial assistance from that agency under 

subsection (d)(1) and any other manufacturing centers considered to be 

centers for manufacturing innovation pursuant to subsection (c)(3) to 

annually submit to the appropriate agency head a report’’; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Each agency head shall submit such reports to the Secretary.’’; and 

(B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: 

‘‘(3) ASSESSMENTS BY GAO.—— 

‘‘(A) ASSESSMENTS.—Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the 

Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an assessment of the operation of the Program during the most recent 3-year period, including an assessment of the progress made towards achieving the goals specified in the 

national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing under section 102(b)(7) 

of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 

6622(b)(7)). 

‘‘(B) ELEMENTS.—Each assessment submitted under subparagraph (A) 

shall include, for the period covered by the report—— 

‘‘(i) a review of the management, coordination, and industry utility of 

the Program; 

‘‘(ii) an assessment of the extent to which the Program has furthered 

the purposes described in subsection (a)(2); 

‘‘(iii) such recommendations for legislative and administrative action 

as the Comptroller General considers appropriate to improve the Program; and 

‘‘(iv) an assessment as to whether any prior recommendations for improvement made by the Comptroller General have been implemented or 

adopted.’’; 

(7) in subsection (h)— 

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘subsection (e)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

(k)’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—The Secretary shall 

collaborate with Federal agencies whose missions contribute to, or are affected 

by, advanced manufacturing to identify and leverage existing resources at such 

Federal agencies to assist centers of manufacturing innovation in carrying out 

the purposes of the program specified in subsection (a)(2). Such existing resources may include programs—— 

‘‘(A) at the Department of Labor relating to labor and apprenticeships; 

‘‘(B) at the Economic Development Administration relating to regional innovation, such as the Regional Innovation Strategies program; 

‘‘(C) at the Department of Education relating to workforce development, 

education, training, and retraining; 

‘‘(D) at the Department of Defense relating to procurement and other authorities of the Department of Defense; 

‘‘(E) at the Food and Drug Administration relating to biopharmaceutical 

manufacturing; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

‘‘(F) at the National Science Foundation, including the Advanced Technological Education program; 

‘‘(G) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to 

procurement, workforce development, education, training, and retraining; 

and 

‘‘(H) additional programs that the Secretary determines are appropriate 

to support the activities of existing centers for manufacturing innovation.’’; 

and 

(8) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) AGENCY HEAD.—The term ‘agency head’ means the head of a Federal 

agency that is providing financial assistance for a center of manufacturing innovation, including the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Energy. 

‘‘(2) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER.—The term ‘regional innovation cluster’ 

has the meaning given such term in section 27(f)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler 

Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3722(f)(1)). 

‘‘(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—— 

‘‘(1) NIST.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024. 

‘‘(2) RESERVATION.—Of the amount made available under paragraph (1) the 

Secretary shall reserve not less than $5,000,000 for the National Office of the 

Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program established under subsection 

(f). 

‘‘(3) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—For centers of manufacturing innovation operated by the Department of Energy, there are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Secretary of Energy—— 

‘‘(A) $70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022; and 

‘‘(B) $84,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 and 2024.’’. 

SEC. 3. INCREASED EMPHASIS ON REGIONAL INNOVATION WITHIN AND EXTENSION OF REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

Section 27 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 

3722) is amended—— 

(1) in subsection (b)(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(I) Developing relationships at the local level to build supply chains and 

use existing capabilities of entities operating on that level to bring economic 

growth to suburban and rural areas.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ‘‘2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2024’’. 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to amend the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act to reauthorize the network for manufacturing innovation and make changes to the implementation of 

the network. These changes include an increase in activities in 

workforce development and outreach to small manufacturers, and 

the development of network-wide performance metrics. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The Manufacturing USA Institutes are a national network of institutes focused on accelerating innovation in industry-relevant 

manufacturing technologies to support the commercialization of 

these technologies. Each Institute is a public-private partnership 

that leverages industry, academic, and federal resources to solve 

non-competitive/pre-competitive technical challenges in select advanced manufacturing sectors. The Institutes started as an initiative of the Obama Administration in 2012 and were authorized by 

Congress in 2014 through passage of the Revitalizing American 

Manufacturing and Innovation (RAMI) Act, included in the FY15 

Appropriations Act. Technology areas for the fourteen Institutes 

vary widely, and include 3D printing, advanced robotics, smart 

manufacturing, and advanced composites. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

The Manufacturing USA Program has been operational for five 

years and several reports, including from the GAO, the National 

Academies, and Deloitte, have evaluated the success of the Institutes in achieving their overall goal of strengthening the U.S. advanced manufacturing base. The consensus from these reports is 

that the Institutes are successfully leveraging the public-private 

partnership model to convene industry and academic partners to 

make joint R&D investments in technologies essential to commercializing cutting-edge advanced manufacturing techniques. However, these reviews have found that there is still room for improvement for the Institutes to deliver on the purposes of the Program. 

The American Manufacturing Leadership Act (H.R. 2397) incorporates suggestions from these reports to reauthorize the Manufacturing USA Program and make some changes to the Program. 

IV. COMMITTEE HEARINGS

On March 26, 2019, the Honorable Haley Stevens presiding, the 

Research and Technology Subcommittee and the Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

held a joint hearing to review the successes and further opportunities for the Manufacturing USA Institutes to achieve the goal of 

improving the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. There were 

five witnesses: 1) Mr. Ryan Myers, Director of Business Development, DoD for Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence (Hexagon MI); 

2) Mr. Mike Molnar, Director of the Office of Advanced Manufacturing at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST); 3) Dr. John Hopkins, CEO of the Institute for Advanced 

Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI); 4) Ms. Valri 

Lightner, Acting Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Office 

under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the 

Department of Energy; 5) Dr. Mitchell Dibbs, Associate R&D Director for External Technology—Government Programs at the Dow 

Chemical Company. Witnesses and Members discussed the benefits 

of the public-private partnership model, the need to ensure sustainability for the institutes, and opportunities to enhance education 

and workforce training and outreach to small and medium size 

manufacturers. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND VOTES

As summarized in Section IV of this report, the Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology and the Energy Subcommittee heard testimony in the 116th Congress relevant to the activities authorized 

in H.R. 2397 at a hearing held on March 26, 2019. 

On April 30, 2019, Representative Haley Stevens of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for herself and Representatives Balderson, Kennedy, Reed, Eddie Bernice Johnson of 

Texas, and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, introduced H.R. 2397, the 

American Manufacturing and Leadership Act, to reauthorize the 

Manufacturing USA program and make changes to the implementation of the program. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met to consider H.R. 2397 on Tuesday, May 1, 2019 and considered the following amendments to the bill: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

1. Ms. Stevens offered an amendment to make technical and conforming amendments to the underlying legislation. The amendment 

was agreed to by a voice vote. 

2. Mr. Lamb and Mr. Gonzalez offered an amendment that authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to award grants to institutes 

that no longer receive substantial federal funding under the Manufacturing USA Program in order to continue federal support for 

education and workforce training; outreach to small businesses for 

that institute’s technology area; and other activities that the private sector is highly unlikely to support on its own. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. 

3. Mr. Posey and Mr. Lamb offered an amendment to add NASA 

to a list of agencies that the Secretary of Commerce can collaborate 

with to ensure the Manufacturing USA Program is fully leveraging 

all relevant Federal programs to achieve Program purposes. The 

amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. 

4. Mr. Weber offered an amendment to require a sunset on funding for all institutes after 7 years. The amendment was not agreed 

to by a roll call vote of 13 ayes and 20 nays. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 HR121.001
9 

5. Mr. Weber offered an amendment to add a spending limitation 

such that the funding for centers for manufacturing innovation 

must come from within the total funds appropriated to each agency 

in each fiscal year and adds a hard cap on funding such that agencies cannot by law exceed the amounts authorized in this legislation. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 

ayes and 20 nays. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
10 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 HR121.002
11 

Ms. Johnson moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, 

H.R. 2397, as amended, to the House with the recommendation 

that the bill be approved. The motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

Ms. Johnson moved that: (1) the staff be authorized to make any 

necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill; and (2) that 

Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit 

supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The American Manufacturing Leadership Act (H.R. 2397) would 

extend the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation 

(RAMI) Act of 2014 to all agencies sponsoring Manufacturing USA 

Institutes, allow for the continuation of the Manufacturing USA 

Program through the authorization of funding renewals, and expand authorities of the NIST Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION) 

Sec. 1 Short title 

‘‘American Manufacturing Leadership Act’’ 

Sec. 2 Changes in implementation of network for manufacturing innovation 

This section makes changes to the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation (RAMI) Act of 2014. In particular, this section: adds contributing to the development of regional innovation 

clusters in manufacturing to the purposes of the Manufacturing 

USA Program; extends the requirements of the RAMI Act to all 

agencies sponsoring Manufacturing USA institutes (whereas previously the requirements had applied only to the Department of 

Commerce (DOC)/NIST); strengthens the institutes’ role in advanced manufacturing workforce development and in outreach to 

and inclusion of small and medium sized businesses; authorizes 

agencies to renew institutes for an additional period of funding following a rigorous review of the institute’s progress toward meeting 

measureable goals; and ensures that the technology focus of any institute does not substantially overlap with the technology focus of 

any other institute. 

This section also expands the authorities of the Manufacturing 

USA Program office housed at NIST to collaborate with other agencies, including to develop network-wide performance goals; help develop pilot programs for the institutes; and identify and disseminate best practices in education and workforce training to the network of institutes. Additionally, this section strengthens the partnership between the Manufacturing USA Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to ensure better engagement of small businesses in the institutes; ensures more consistent 

annual reporting from each institute; ties the GAO reviews of the 

Manufacturing USA Program to the national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing required by the America Competes Act of 

2010; and ensures that the Program is fully leveraging relevant 

programs across the Federal government to help the institutes 

achieve their goals. Finally, this section authorizes $25 million for 

NIST for each of fiscal years 2020–2024; $70 million for DOE for 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
12 

each of fiscal years 2020–2022; and $84 million for DOE for each 

of fiscal years 2023–2024 in order to enable each agency to continue funding their current institutes and stand up at least one additional institute. 

Sec. 3. Increased emphasis on regional innovation within and extension of regional innovation program 

This section reauthorizes the Department of Commerce Economic 

Development Administration Regional Innovation Program originally authorized in the America Competes Act of 2010 for an additional 5 years and adds language on developing relationships to 

build supply chains to the list of permissible activities under Program grants. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee intends that this legislation shall not decrease 

the autonomy of each funding agency to select and oversee its own 

center(s) for manufacturing innovation consistent with that agency’s mission. It is also the Committee’s intention that the additional authorities granted to the National Institute for Standards 

and Technology (NIST) enable NIST to provide shared tools for 

new and existing centers to carry out their purposes and activities, 

without granting NIST any new authorities over new or existing 

centers supported entirely by other agencies. Finally, the Committee does not intend for this legislation to increase reporting requirements for centers. Rather, the Committee intends the onus be 

on agencies to better coordinate and collaborate to streamline and 

standardize some of the reporting requirements, including performance metrics, as appropriate. The Committee understands that 

some metrics and reporting requirements will continue to be 

unique to individual agencies. However, a system-wide assessment 

of the outcomes of Federal investments in the Manufacturing USA 

Program requires at least some standardization in metrics and reporting. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate 

of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures 

or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 29, 2019. 

Hon. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, 

Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRWOMAN: The Congressional Budget Office 

has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2397, the American Manufacturing Leadership Act. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
13 

1Partners include federal agencies with missions related to advanced manufacturing in the 

United States, including the Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of 

Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Hughes. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

Major Provisions 

H.R. 2397 would increase the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Manufacturing USA grant program that funds collaborative research and development efforts among academia, government, and private industry to solve advanced manufacturing 

challenges. Manufacturing USA is administered and funded by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy (DOE).1 The bill also would extend the authorization for the Regional Innovation Program administered by the 

Economic Development Administration (EDA). 

Federal Costs 

Increases in spending subject to appropriation under H.R. 2397 

are shown in Table 1. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would cost $218 million over the 2020–2024 period, subject to appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 2397 

By fiscal year, millions of dollars— 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019– 

2024 

NIST: 

Authorization ......................................... 0 20 20 20 20 20 100 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 9 18 20 20 20 87 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 HR121.003
14 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 2397— 

Continued 

By fiscal year, millions of dollars— 

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019– 

2024 

DOE: 

Estimated Authorization ....................... 0 20 20 20 34 34 128 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 9 18 20 26 33 106 

EDA: 

Authorization ......................................... 0 10 10 10 10 10 50 

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 1 3 5 8 8 25 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization .............. 0 50 50 50 64 64 278 

Estimated Outlays ....................... 0 19 39 45 54 61 218 

NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology, DOE = Department of Energy; EDA = Economic Development Administration. 

Under current law, NIST is authorized to receive appropriations 

of $5 million a year over the 2015–2024 period to carry out the 

Manufacturing USA program. H.R. 2397 would increase that 

amount to $25 million each fiscal year from 2020 to 2024. CBO estimates that implementing that provision would cost $87 million 

over the 2020–2024 period. 

Under current law the DOE is authorized to transfer a total of 

$250 million over the 2015–2024 period to NIST to carry out the 

Manufacturing USA program. To date, however, no DOE appropriations have been provided for the Manufacturing USA program. 

H.R. 2397 would authorize DOE to receive appropriations of $70 

million a year over the 2020–2022 period and $84 million a year 

over the 2023–2024 period to fund and operate centers of manufacturing innovation. Thus, over the 2020–2024 period, H.R. 2397 

would increase the amounts authorized to be appropriated to DOE 

for this program by $128 million, which CBO estimates would cost 

$106 million over the five year period. 

Finally, under current law, the authorization of appropriations 

for the EDA’s Regional Innovation Program expires in 2019. H.R. 

2397 would extend the $10 million a year authorization through 

2024, which CBO estimates would cost $25 million over the next 

five years. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is David Hughes. The estimate was reviewed by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

XI. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

H.R. 2397 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 

2397 are to strengthen coordination of federal investments in U.S. 

advanced manufacturing that will improve the competitiveness of 

U.S. manufacturing through advanced manufacturing research, inVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
15 

novation, and technology, develop domestic advanced manufacturing capabilities, and accelerate the development of an advanced 

manufacturing workforce. 

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 2397 does not create any advisory committees. 

XV. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision of H.R. 

2397 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program, including 

any program that was included in a report to Congress pursuant 

to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance. 

XVI. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the Committee 

finds that H.R. 2397 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 

limited tariff benefits. 

XVII. APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that H.R. 2397 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVIII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 34. NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the 

Institute a program to be known as the ‘‘øNetwork for Manufacturing Innovation Program¿ Manufacturing USA Program’’ 

(referred to in this section as the ‘‘Program’’). 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
16 

(2) PURPOSES OF PROGRAM.—The purposes of the Program 

are— 

(A) to improve the competitiveness of United States 

manufacturing and to increase the production of goods 

manufactured predominantly within the United States; 

(B) to stimulate United States leadership in advanced 

manufacturing research, innovation, and technology; 

(C) to facilitate the transition of innovative technologies 

into scalable, cost-effective, and high-performing manufacturing capabilities; 

(D) to facilitate access by manufacturing enterprises to 

capital-intensive infrastructure, including high-performance electronics and computing, and the supply chains 

that enable these technologies; 

(E) to accelerate the development of an advanced manufacturing workforce; 

(F) to facilitate peer exchange of and the documentation 

of best practices in addressing advanced manufacturing 

challenges; 

(G) to leverage non-Federal sources of support to promote a stable and sustainable business model without the 

need for long-term Federal funding; øand¿ 

(H) to create and preserve jobsø.¿; and 

(I) to contribute to the development of regional manufacturing innovation clusters across the Nation. 

(3) SUPPORT.—The Secretary, acting through the Director, 

shall carry out the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) by supporting— 

(A) the Network for Manufacturing Innovation established under subsection (b); and 

(B) the establishment of centers for manufacturing innovation. 

(4) DIRECTOR.—The Secretary shall carry out the Program 

through the Director. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVA- TION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the Program, the Secretary shall 

establish a network of centers for manufacturing innovation. 

(2) DESIGNATION.—The network established under paragraph 

(1) shall be known as the ‘‘Network for Manufacturing Innovation’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Network’’). 

(c) CENTERS FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, a ‘‘center for 

manufacturing innovation’’ is a center that— 

(A) has been established by a person or group of persons 

to address challenges in advanced manufacturing and to 

assist manufacturers in retaining or expanding industrial 

production and jobs in the United States; 

(B) has a predominant focus on a manufacturing process, 

novel material, enabling technology, supply chain integration methodology, or another relevant aspect of advanced 

manufacturing, such as nanotechnology applications, advanced ceramics, photonics and optics, composites, 

biobased and advanced materials, flexible hybrid technologies, and tool development for microelectronics; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
17 

(C) as determined by the øSecretary¿ agency head, has 

the potential— 

(i) to improve the competitiveness of United States 

manufacturing, including key advanced manufacturing 

technologies such as nanotechnology, advanced ceramics, photonics and optics, composites, biobased and advanced materials, flexible hybrid technologies, and tool 

development for microelectronics; 

(ii) to accelerate non-Federal investment in advanced manufacturing production capacity in the 

United States; or 

(iii) to enable the commercial application of new 

technologies or industry-wide manufacturing processes; and 

(D) includes active participation among representatives 

from multiple industrial entities, research universities, 

community colleges, and such other entities as the øSecretary¿ agency head considers appropriate, which may include industry-led consortia, career and technical education schools, Federal laboratories, State, local, and tribal 

governments, businesses, educational institutions, and 

nonprofit organizations. 

(2) ACTIVITIES.—øActivities of a center for manufacturing innovation may include—¿ 

(A) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—Activities of a center for manufacturing innovation shall include the following:— 

ø(A)¿ (i) Research, development, and demonstration 

projects, including proof-of-concept development and 

prototyping, to reduce the cost, time, and risk of commercializing new technologies and improvements in 

existing technologies, processes, products, and research and development of materials to solve 

precompetitive industrial problems with economic or 

national security implications. 

ø(B)¿ (ii) Development and implementation of education, training, and workforce recruitment courses, 

materials, and programs addressing workforce needs 

through training and education programs at all appropriate education levels. 

ø(C)¿ (iii) Development of innovative methodologies 

and practices for supply chain integration and introduction of new technologies into supply chains, as appropriate. 

ø(D)¿ (iv) Outreach and engagement with small and 

medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, including 

women and minority owned manufacturing enterprises, in addition to large manufacturing enterprises. 

(v) Development of roadmaps with respect to technology areas being pursued by that center for manufacturing innovation that take into account the research 

and development undertaken at other centers for manufacturing innovation and Federal agencies with respect to such areas. 

ø(E) Such other activities as the Secretary, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies whose misVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
18 

sions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing, considers consistent with the purposes described in 

subsection (a)(2).¿ 

(B) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Activities of a center for 

manufacturing innovation shall includesuch other activities 

as the agency head, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to, or are affected by, advanced manufacturing, considers consistent 

with the purposes described in subsection (a)(2). 

(3) ADDITIONAL CENTERS FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The National Additive Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute and other manufacturing centers formally recognized as manufacturing innovation centers pursuant to Federal law or executive actions, or under pending interagency review for such recognition as of the date 

of enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing 

and Innovation Act of 2014, shall be considered centers for 

manufacturing innovation, but such centers shall not receive any financial assistance under subsection (d). 

(B) NETWORK PARTICIPATION.—A manufacturing center 

that is substantially similar to those established under 

this subsection but that does not receive financial assistance under subsection (d) may, upon request of the center, 

be recognized as a center for manufacturing innovation by 

the Secretary for purposes of participation in the Network. 

(C) APPLICATION.—Effective beginning on the date of the 

enactment of the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, 

a manufacturing center shall be subject to subsections 

(a)(2), (c), and (d) in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a center for manufacturing 

innovation established pursuant to this section if such center— 

(i)(I) is, as of such date of enactment, considered a 

center for manufacturing innovation under subparagraph (A) or recognized as a center for manufacturing 

innovation under subparagraph (B); and 

(II) as of such date of enactment, receives Federal financial assistance under subsection (d) or otherwise 

consistent with the purposes of this section; or 

(ii) is under pending agency review for such recognition as of such date of enactment. 

(d) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ESTABLISH AND SUPPORT CENTERS

FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the Program, the øSecretary¿ agency head shall award financial assistance for a period of not less than 5 and not more than 7 years to a person 

or group of persons to assist the organization in planning, establishing, or supporting a center for manufacturing innovation. 

(2) APPLICATION.—A person or group of persons seeking financial assistance under paragraph (1) shall submit to the 

øSecretary¿ agency head an application therefor at such time, 

in such manner, and containing such information as the øSecretary¿ agency head may require. The application shall, at a 

minimum, describe the specific sources and amounts of nonVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
19 

Federal financial support for the center on the date financial 

assistance is sought, as well as the anticipated sources and 

amounts of non-Federal financial support during the period for 

which the center could be eligible for continued Federal financial assistance under this section. 

(3) OPEN PROCESS.—In soliciting applications for financial assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure an 

open process that will allow for the consideration of all applications relevant to advanced manufacturing regardless of technology area. 

(4) SELECTION.— ø(A) COMPETITIVE, MERIT REVIEW.—In awarding financial assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

use a competitive, merit review process that includes peer 

review by a diverse group of individuals with relevant expertise from both the private and public sectors.¿ 

(A) COMPETITIVE, MERIT REVIEW.—In awarding financial 

assistance under paragraph (1), the agency head shall— 

(i) use a competitive, merit review process that includes peer review by a diverse group of individuals 

with relevant expertise from both the private and public sectors; and 

(ii) ensure that the technology focus of a center for 

manufacturing innovation does not substantially duplicate the technology focus of any other center for manufacturing innovation. 

(B) PARTICIPATION IN PROCESS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—No political appointee may participate on a peer review panel. The øSecretary¿ agency 

head shall implement a conflict of interest policy that 

ensures public transparency and accountability, and 

requires full disclosure of any real or potential conflicts of interest on the parts of individuals that participate in the merit selection process. 

(ii) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this subparagraph, 

the term ‘‘political appointee’’ means any individual 

who— 

(I) is employed in a position described under 

sections 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United 

States Code, (relating to the Executive Schedule); 

(II) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency appointee, or noncareer appointee in the 

Senior Executive Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, of section 

3132(a) of title 5, United States Code; or 

(III) is employed in a position in the executive 

branch of the Government of a confidential or policy-determining character under schedule C of 

subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

ø(C) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, TRANSPARENCY, AND

ACCOUNTABILITY.—For each award of financial assistance 

under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

ø(i) make publicly available at the time of the award 

a description of the bases for the award, including an 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
20 

explanation of the relative merits of the winning applicant as compared to other applications received, if applicable; and 

ø(ii) develop and implement metrics-based performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the activities funded.¿ 

(C) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, TRANSPARENCY, AND

ACCOUNTABILITY.—For each award of financial assistance 

under paragraph (1), the agency head shall develop and 

implement metrics-based performance standards to assess 

the effectiveness of activities funded in making progress toward the purposes of the Program. 

(D) COLLABORATION.—In awarding financial assistance 

under paragraph (1), øthe Secretary shall, acting through 

the National Program Office established under subsection 

(f)(1), collaborate¿ agency head, in coordination with the 

National Program Office, as appropriate, shall collaborate 

with Federal departments and agencies whose missions 

contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing. 

(E) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting a person who submitted an application under paragraph (2) for an award of 

financial assistance under paragraph (1), the øSecretary¿ 

agency head shall consider, at a minimum, the following: 

(i) The potential of the center for manufacturing innovation to advance domestic manufacturing and the 

likelihood of economic impact, including the creation 

or preservation of jobs, in the predominant focus areas 

of the center for manufacturing innovation. 

(ii) The commitment of continued financial support, 

advice, participation, and other contributions from 

non-Federal sources, to provide leverage and resources 

to promote a stable and sustainable business model 

without the need for long-term Federal funding. 

(iii) Whether the financial support provided to the 

center for manufacturing innovation from non-Federal 

sources significantly exceeds the requested Federal financial assistance. 

(iv) How the center for manufacturing innovation 

will increase the non-Federal investment in advanced 

manufacturing research in the United States. 

(v) How the center for manufacturing innovation 

will engage with small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, to improve the capacity of such enterprises to commercialize new processes and technologies. 

(vi) How the center for manufacturing innovation 

will carry out educational and workforce activities that 

meet industrial needs related to the predominant 

focus areas of the center. 

(vii) How the center for manufacturing innovation 

will advance economic competitiveness and generate 

substantial benefits to the Nation that extend beyond 

the direct return to participants in the Program. 

(viii) Whether the predominant focus of the center 

for manufacturing innovation is a manufacturing procVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
21 

ess, novel material, enabling technology, supply chain 

integration methodology, or other relevant aspect of 

advanced manufacturing that has not already been 

commercialized, marketed, distributed, or sold by another entity. 

(ix) How the center for manufacturing innovation 

will strengthen and leverage the assets of a region. 

(x) How the center for manufacturing will encourage 

the education and training of veterans and individuals 

with disabilities. 

(5) LIMITATIONS ON AWARDS.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—No award of financial assistance may 

be made under paragraph (1) to a center of manufacturing 

innovation after the 7-year period beginning on the date on 

which the Secretary first awards financial assistance to 

that center under that paragraph.¿ 

(A) TERM OF AWARD.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), an award 

made to a center for manufacturing innovation may be 

renewed for an additional period not to exceed the duration of the original funding award, subject to a rigorous merit review. In awarding additional funds, the 

agency head shall consider the extent to which the center has made progress in achieving the purposes described in subsection (a) and carrying out the activities 

specified in subsection (c)(2). 

(ii) EXISTING CENTERS.—Notwithstanding clause (i), 

a center already in existence or undergoing a renewal 

process on the date of enactment of the American Manufacturing Leadership Act— 

(I) may continue to receive support for the duration of the original funding award beginning on 

the date of establishment of that center; and 

(II) shall be eligible for renewal of that funding 

pursuant to clause (i). 

(B) MATCHING FUNDS AND PREFERENCES.—The total Federal financial assistance awarded to a center of manufacturing innovation, including the financial assistance under 

paragraph (1), in a given year shall not exceed 50 percent 

of the total funding of the center in that year, except that 

the øSecretary¿ agency head may make an exception in 

the case of large capital facilities or equipment purchases. 

The øSecretary¿ agency head shall give weighted preference to applicants seeking less than the maximum Federal share of funds allowed under this paragraph. 

(C) FUNDING DECREASE.—The amount of financial assistance provided to a center of manufacturing innovation 

under paragraph (1) shall decrease after the second year 

of funding for the center, and shall continue to decrease 

thereafter in each year in which financial assistance is 

provided, unless the øSecretary¿ agency head determines 

that— 

(i) the center is otherwise meeting its stated goals 

and metrics under this section; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
22 

(ii) unforeseen circumstances have altered the center’s anticipated funding; and 

(iii) the center can identify future non-Federal funding sources that would warrant a temporary exemption from the limitations established in this subparagraph. 

ø(e) FUNDING.— 

ø(1) GENERAL RULE.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 

no funds are authorized to be appropriated by the Revitalize 

American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 for carrying out this section. 

ø(2) AUTHORITY.— 

ø(A) NIST INDUSTRIAL TECHNICAL SERVICES ACCOUNT.— 

To the extent provided for in advance by appropriations 

Acts, the Secretary may use not to exceed $5,000,000 for 

each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2024 to carry out this 

section from amounts appropriated to the Institute for Industrial Technical Services. 

ø(B) ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ACCOUNT.—To the extent provided for in advance by appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Energy may transfer to the 

Institute not to exceed $250,000,000 for the period encompassing fiscal years 2015 through 2024 for the Secretary to 

carry out this section from amounts appropriated for advanced manufacturing research and development within 

the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account for 

the Department of Energy.¿ 

(e) GRANT PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES FOR CENTERS FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING.—The Secretary may award grants on a competitive basis to 

centers of manufacturing innovation that are no longer recognized 

as such under subsection (c)(3)(C) to carry out workforce development, outreach to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, and 

other activities that— 

(1) are determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest; and 

(2) are unlikely to receive private sector financial support. 

(f) NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish, within 

the Institute, the National Office of the Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program (referred to in this section as the 

‘‘National Program Office’’), which shall oversee and carry out 

the Program. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The functions of the National Program Office are— 

(A) to oversee the planning, management, and coordination of the Program; 

(B) to enter into memorandums of understanding with 

Federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing, to 

carry out the purposes described in subsection (a)(2); 

(C) to develop, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, and update not less frequently than 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
23 

once every 3 years thereafter, a strategic plan to guide the 

Program; 

(D) to establish such procedures, processes, and criteria 

as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the activities of the Program with programs and activities of other Federal departments and 

agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by 

advanced manufacturing; 

(E) to establish a clearinghouse of public information related to the activities of the Program; øand¿ 

(F) to act as a convener of the Networkø.¿; 

(G) to work with non-sponsoring Federal agencies to explore and develop options for sponsoring centers for manufacturing innovation at such agencies; 

(H) to work with sponsoring Federal agencies to develop 

and implement network-wide performance goals with measurable targets and timelines; 

(I) to help develop pilot programs that may be implemented by the centers for manufacturing innovation to address specific purposes of the Program, including to accelerate technology transfer to the private sector; and 

(J) to identify and disseminate best practices for workforce education and training across centers for manufacturing innovation and further enhance collaboration among 

centers for manufacturing innovation in developing and 

implementing such practices. 

(3) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In developing and updating the 

strategic plan under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall solicit recommendations and advice from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, research universities, community colleges, 

and other relevant organizations and institutions on an ongoing basis. 

(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Upon completion, the Secretary 

shall transmit the strategic plan required under paragraph 

(2)(C) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology of the House of Representatives. 

ø(5) HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.— 

The Secretary shall ensure that the National Program Office 

incorporates the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership into Program planning to ensure that the results of the 

Program reach small and medium-sized entities.¿ 

(5) HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.— 

The Secretary shall ensure that the National Program Office incorporates the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

into Program planning to ensure— 

(A) significant outreach to, participation of, and engagement of small- and medium-sized manufacturers in centers 

for manufacturing innovation across the entirety of the 

manufacturing supply chain; and 

(B) that the results of the Program, including technologies developed by the Program, reach small- and medium-sized manufacturers and that such entities have acVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
24 

cess to technical assistance, as appropriate, in deploying 

those technologies. 

(6) DETAILEES.—Any Federal Government employee may be 

detailed to the National Program Office without reimbursement. Such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil 

service status or privilege. 

(g) REPORTING AND AUDITING.— (1) ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE SECRETARY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—øThe Secretary shall require each recipient of financial assistance under subsection (d)(1) to 

annually submit a report to the Secretary¿ Each agency 

head shall require each recipient of financial assistance 

from that agency under subsection (d)(1) and any other 

manufacturing centers considered to be centers for manufacturing innovation pursuant to subsection (c)(3) to annually submit to the appropriate agency head a report that 

describes the finances and performance of the center for 

manufacturing innovation for which such assistance was 

awarded. Each agency head shall submit such reports to 

the Secretary. 

(B) ELEMENTS.—Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include— 

(i) an accounting of expenditures of amounts awarded to the recipient under subsection (d)(1); and 

(ii) consistent with the metrics-based performance 

measures developed and implemented by the Secretary under this section, a description of the performance of the center for manufacturing innovation with 

respect to— 

(I) its goals, plans, financial support, and accomplishments; and 

(II) how the center for manufacturing innovation has furthered the purposes described in subsection (a)(2). 

(2) ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not less frequently than once each 

year until December 31, 2024, the Secretary shall submit 

a report to Congress that describes the performance of the 

Program during the most recent 1-year period. 

(B) ELEMENTS.—Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include, for the period covered by the report— 

(i) a summary and assessment of the reports received by the Secretary under paragraph (1); 

(ii) an accounting of the funds expended by the Secretary under the Program, including any temporary 

exemptions granted from the requirements of subsection (d)(5)(C); 

(iii) an assessment of the participation in, and contributions to, the Network by any centers for manufacturing innovation not receiving financial assistance 

under subsection (d)(1); and 

(iv) an assessment of the Program with respect to 

meeting the purposes described in subsection (a)(2). 

ø(3) ASSESSMENTS BY GAO.— 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
25 

ø(A) ASSESSMENTS.—Not less frequently than once every 

2 years, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress 

an assessment of the operation of the Program during the 

most recent 2-year period. 

ø(B) FINAL ASSESSMENT.—Not later than December 31, 

2024, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 

final report regarding the overall success of the Program. 

ø(C) ELEMENTS.—Each assessment submitted under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall include, for the period covered 

by the report— 

ø(i) a review of the management, coordination, and 

industry utility of the Program; 

ø(ii) an assessment of the extent to which the Program has furthered the purposes described in subsection (a)(2); 

ø(iii) such recommendations for legislative and administrative action as the Comptroller General considers appropriate to improve the Program; and 

ø(iv) an assessment as to whether any prior recommendations for improvement made by the Comptroller General have been implemented or adopted.¿ 

(3) ASSESSMENTS BY GAO.— (A) ASSESSMENTS.—Not less frequently than once every 3 

years, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an 

assessment of the operation of the Program during the most 

recent 3-year period, including an assessment of the 

progress made towards achieving the goals specified in the 

national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing under 

section 102(b)(7) of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 6622(b)(7)). 

(B) ELEMENTS.—Each assessment submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include, for the period covered by the 

report— 

(i) a review of the management, coordination, and industry utility of the Program; 

(ii) an assessment of the extent to which the Program 

has furthered the purposes described in subsection 

(a)(2); 

(iii) such recommendations for legislative and administrative action as the Comptroller General considers appropriate to improve the Program; and 

(iv) an assessment as to whether any prior recommendations for improvement made by the Comptroller General have been implemented or adopted. 

(h) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.— 

(1) APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND CONTRACTS.—The Secretary may appoint such personnel and enter into such contracts, financial assistance agreements, and other agreements 

as the Secretary considers necessary or appropriate to carry 

out the Program, including support for research and development activities involving a center for manufacturing innovation. 

(2) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Of amounts available under the 

authority provided by øsubsection (e)¿ subsection (k), the Secretary may transfer to other Federal agencies such sums as the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
26 

Secretary considers necessary or appropriate to carry out the 

Program. No funds so transferred may be used to reimburse or 

otherwise pay for the costs of financial assistance incurred or 

commitments of financial assistance made prior to the date of 

enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014. 

(3) AUTHORITY OF OTHER AGENCIES.—In the event that the 

Secretary exercises the authority to transfer funds to another 

agency under paragraph (2), such agency may accept such 

funds to award and administer, under the same conditions and 

constraints applicable to the Secretary, all aspects of financial 

assistance awards under this section. 

(4) USE OF RESOURCES.—In furtherance of the purposes of 

the Program, the Secretary may use, with the consent of a covered entity and with or without reimbursement, the land, services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of such covered entity. 

(5) ACCEPTANCE OF RESOURCES.—In addition to amounts appropriated to carry out the Program, the Secretary may accept 

funds, services, equipment, personnel, and facilities from any 

covered entity to carry out the Program, subject to the same 

conditions and constraints otherwise applicable to the Secretary under this section and such funds may only be obligated 

to the extent provided for in advance by appropriations Acts. 

(6) COVERED ENTITY.—For purposes of this subsection, a covered entity is any Federal department, Federal agency, instrumentality of the United States, State, local government, tribal 

government, territory, or possession of the United States, or of 

any political subdivision thereof, or international organization, 

or any public or private entity or individual. 

(6) COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—The 

Secretary shall collaborate with Federal agencies whose missions contribute to, or are affected by, advanced manufacturing 

to identify and leverage existing resources at such Federal agencies to assist centers of manufacturing innovation in carrying 

out the purposes of the program specified in subsection (a)(2). 

Such existing resources may include programs— 

(A) at the Department of Labor relating to labor and apprenticeships; 

(B) at the Economic Development Administration relating 

to regional innovation, such as the Regional Innovation 

Strategies program; 

(C) at the Department of Education relating to workforce 

development, education, training, and retraining; 

(D) at the Department of Defense relating to procurement 

and other authorities of the Department of Defense; 

(E) at the Food and Drug Administration relating to biopharmaceutical manufacturing; 

(F) at the National Science Foundation, including the 

Advanced Technological Education program; 

(G) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to procurement, workforce development, education, training, and retraining; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
27 

(H) additional programs that the Secretary determines 

are appropriate to support the activities of existing centers 

for manufacturing innovation. 

(i) PATENTS.—Chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, shall 

apply to any funding agreement (as defined in section 201 of that 

title) awarded to new or existing centers for manufacturing innovation. 

(j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) AGENCY HEAD.—The term ‘‘agency head’’ means the head 

of a Federal agency that is providing financial assistance for a 

center of manufacturing innovation, including the Secretary of 

Commerce and the Secretary of Energy. 

(2) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER.—The term ‘‘regional innovation cluster’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

27(f)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 

1980 (15 U.S.C. 3722(f)(1)). 

(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) NIST.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 

years 2020 through 2024. 

(2) RESERVATION.—Of the amount made available under 

paragraph (1) the Secretary shall reserve not less than 

$5,000,000 for the National Office of the Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program established under subsection (f). 

(3) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—For centers of manufacturing 

innovation operated by the Department of Energy, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy— (A) $70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 

2022; and 

(B) $84,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 and 2024. 

* * * * * * * 

STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT 

OF 1980 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 27. REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a regional innovation program to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, including regional innovation clusters. 

(b) CLUSTER GRANTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under 

subsection (a), the Secretary may award grants on a competitive basis to eligible recipients for activities relating to the formation and development of regional innovation clusters. 

(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Grants awarded under this 

subsection may be used for activities determined appropriate 

by the Secretary, including the following: 

(A) Feasibility studies. 

(B) Planning activities. 

(C) Technical assistance. 

(D) Developing or strengthening communication and collaboration between and among participants of a regional 

innovation cluster. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
28 

(E) Attracting additional participants to a regional innovation cluster. 

(F) Facilitating market development of products and 

services developed by a regional innovation cluster, including through demonstration, deployment, technology transfer, and commercialization activities. 

(G) Developing relationships between a regional innovation cluster and entities or clusters in other regions. 

(H) Interacting with the public and State and local governments to meet the goals of the cluster. 

(I) Developing relationships at the local level to build 

supply chains and use existing capabilities of entities operating on that level to bring economic growth to suburban 

and rural areas. 

(3) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘‘eligible recipient’’ means— 

(A) a State; 

(B) an Indian tribe; 

(C) a city or other political subdivision of a State; 

(D) an entity that— 

(i) is a nonprofit organization, an institution of higher education, a public-private partnership, a science or 

research park, a Federal laboratory, or an economic 

development organization or similar entity; and 

(ii) has an application that is supported by a State 

or a political subdivision of a State; or 

(E) a consortium of any of the entities described in subparagraphs (A) through (D). 

(4) APPLICATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible recipient shall submit an 

application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 

and containing such information and assurances as the 

Secretary may require. 

(B) COMPONENTS.—The application shall include, at a 

minimum, a description of the regional innovation cluster 

supported by the proposed activity, including a description 

of— 

(i) whether the regional innovation cluster is supported by the private sector, State and local governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 

(ii) how the existing participants in the regional innovation cluster will encourage and solicit participation by all types of entities that might benefit from 

participation, including newly formed entities and 

those rival existing participants; 

(iii) the extent to which the regional innovation cluster is likely to stimulate innovation and have a positive impact on regional economic growth and development; 

(iv) whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster have access to, or contribute to, a welltrained workforce; 

(v) whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster are capable of attracting additional funds 

from non-Federal sources; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
29 

(vi) the likelihood that the participants in the regional innovation cluster will be able to sustain activities once grant funds under this subsection have been 

expended. 

(C) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.—The Secretary shall give 

special consideration to applications from regions that contain communities negatively impacted by trade. 

(5) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.—The Secretary shall give special consideration to an eligible recipient who agrees to collaborate with local workforce investment area boards. 

(6) COST SHARE.—The Secretary may not provide more than 

50 percent of the total cost of any activity funded under this 

subsection. 

(7) OUTREACH TO RURAL COMMUNITIES.—The Secretary shall 

conduct outreach to public and private sector entities in rural 

communities to encourage those entities to participate in regional innovation cluster activities under this subsection. 

(8) FUNDING.—The Secretary may accept funds from other 

Federal agencies to support grants and activities under this 

subsection. 

(c) REGIONAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish a regional innovation research and information program— 

(A) to gather, analyze, and disseminate information on 

best practices for regional innovation strategies (including 

regional innovation clusters), including information relating to how innovation, productivity, and economic development can be maximized through such strategies; 

(B) to provide technical assistance, including through the 

development of technical assistance guides, for the development and implementation of regional innovation strategies (including regional innovation clusters); 

(C) to support the development of relevant metrics and 

measurement standards to evaluate regional innovation 

strategies (including regional innovation clusters), including the extent to which such strategies stimulate innovation, productivity, and economic development; and 

(D) to collect and make available data on regional innovation cluster activity in the United States, including data 

on— 

(i) the size, specialization, and competitiveness of regional innovation clusters; 

(ii) the regional domestic product contribution, total 

jobs and earnings by key occupations, establishment 

size, nature of specialization, patents, Federal research and development spending, and other relevant 

information for regional innovation clusters; and 

(iii) supply chain product and service flows within 

and between regional innovation clusters. 

(2) RESEARCH GRANTS.—The Secretary may award research 

grants on a competitive basis to support and further the goals 

of the program established under this subsection. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
30 

(3) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.—Data and analysis 

compiled by the Secretary under the program established in 

this subsection shall be made available to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and nonprofit and for-profit 

entities. 

(4) REGIONAL INNOVATION GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary 

shall incorporate data and analysis relating to any grant under 

subsection (b) into the program established under this subsection. 

(d) INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the 

Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this 

section are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts 

of, other programs at the Department of Commerce or other 

Federal agencies. 

(2) COLLABORATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall explore and pursue collaboration with other Federal agencies, including 

through multiagency funding opportunities, on regional innovation strategies. 

(B) SMALL BUSINESSES.—The Secretary shall ensure that 

such collaboration with Federal agencies prioritizes the 

needs and challenges of small businesses. 

(e) EVALUATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, the Secretary shall enter into a contract with 

an independent entity, such as the National Academy of 

Sciences, to conduct an evaluation of the program established 

under subsection (a). 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation shall include— 

(A) whether the program is achieving its goals; 

(B) any recommendations for how the program may be 

improved; and 

(C) a recommendation as to whether the program should 

be continued or terminated. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER.—The term ‘‘regional innovation cluster’’ means a geographically bounded network of 

similar, synergistic, or complementary entities that— 

(A) are engaged in or with a particular industry sector 

and its related sectors; 

(B) have active channels for business transactions and 

communication; 

(C) share specialized infrastructure, labor markets, and 

services; and 

(D) leverage the region’s unique competitive strengths to 

stimulate innovation and create jobs. 

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means one of the several 

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other territory or possession of the United States. 

(g) FUNDING.— 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
31 

(1) GENERAL RULE.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 

funds are authorized to be appropriated by the Revitalize 

American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 for carrying out this section. 

(2) AUTHORITY.—To the extent provided for in advance by 

appropriations Acts, the Secretary may use not to exceed 

$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2015 through ø2019¿ 

2024 to carry out this section from amounts appropriated for 

economic development assistance programs. 

* * * * * * * 

XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
32 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here HR121.004
33 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here HR121.005
34 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here HR121.006
35 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here HR121.007
36 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here HR121.008
37 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here HR121.009
38 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here HR121.010
39 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 45 here HR121.011
40 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 46 here HR121.012
41 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 47 here HR121.013
42 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 48 here HR121.014
43 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 49 here HR121.015
44 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 50 here HR121.016
45 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 51 here HR121.017
46 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 52 here HR121.018
47 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 53 here HR121.019
48 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Without objection, the bill is considered 

as read and open to amendment at any point. 

I recognize Ms. Stevens for 5 minutes on the bill. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

We are thrilled by H.R. 2397, the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and strengthen 

the Manufacturing USA program. The Manufacturing USA program is a longstanding initiative that has gone a long way to support advanced manufacturing in various research concentrations all 

throughout the country. 

The earliest Institute out of Manufacturing USA, America 

Makes, was stood up in Youngstown, Ohio, in 2012 for the purpose 

of propelling 3–D printing applications and workforce training 

models. The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, later 

renamed Manufacturing USA, was formalized in the Revitalized 

American and Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 to support R&D, tech transfer, and R&D efforts in various research concentrations. Today, there are 14 institutes in the network, including the LIFT Institute in southeastern Michigan, LIFT standing for 

Lightweight Innovations. 

As we heard in our Committee hearing on advanced manufacturing back in March, the strength of these institutions lies in the 

public-private partnership. The private partners, who contribute at 

least 50 percent of the cost, come together to collaborate on 

precompetitive R&D projects in specific technology areas. They are 

only able to do this because of the support from the Federal Government in the planning, development, management, and operations for each of the institutes. The Federal funding also helps research, education, and outreach activities that the private sector is 

unlikely to support on its own. 

The Manufacturing USA Institutes provide critical U.S. global 

leadership in advanced manufacturing. They also serve as unique 

collaborative platforms. Collaboration is the way to success in the 

21st century for U.S. industry and academia to exchange their expertise, to solve challenges, and push the bounds of innovation. In 

2017 alone, Manufacturing USA raised almost $180 million in investments from the private sector from nearly 1,300 manufacturers, universities, community colleges, government labs, and NGO’s. 

The program is making great strides in workforce development 

as well. For example, in 2017 the LIFT Institute reached over 

160,000 students across the country through innovative web-based 

curricula, as well as in-person training programs. The Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute has also catalogued the 

job profiles specific to the digital manufacturing space and the 

changing nature of our transforming economy, our IOT economy, 

creating a taxonomy that many companies, large and small, have 

utilized to create workforce planning and job-training in-house, as 

well as planning for future hiring. 

H.R. 2397, the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, or 

AMLA, will ensure that the program can continue to contribute to 

the growth of our domestic advanced manufacturing industry and 

an advanced manufacturing workforce to fill the high-skilled jobs 

of the future. 

We will never be able to compete by trying to re-create yesterday. 

We must manufacture our future. We must continue to push the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
49 

boundaries of innovation, to grow the industries of tomorrow, to 

win that future. H.R. 2397 reauthorizes Manufacturing USA 

through the year 2024 and extends the requirements of the original 

RAMI act to all agencies. This is an interagency effort that sponsors centers for manufacturing innovation. 

We would like to be clear today that each agency that funds institutes will continue to manage its own institutes with a significant amount of flexibility in how they do so. This legislation only 

seeks to standardize some of the performance metrics and reporting, strengthen coordination, increase engagement of small manufacturers to help build out the entire supply chain, and ensure each 

institute prioritizes education and workforce training needs specific 

to its own technology area. 

Finally, this bill authorizes a total of $125 million for NIST over 

5 years, as well as $378 million for the Department of Energy. 

These funds will enable each agency to continue funding their current institutes to stand—and to stand up at least one additional institute in Fiscal Year 2020 and each year after. 

I am particularly delighted to have been joined by colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to introduce H.R. 2397. I would like to thank 

Chairwoman Johnson, Representatives Balderson and Gonzalez. 

This might be one of the few instances where Ohio and Michigan 

really come together to win, and the sponsors of the original RAMI 

Act, Representatives Kennedy and Reed, for their partnership in 

leading this legislation and for being such great champions for advanced manufacturing. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

Mr. LAMB. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Which we can take up later, thank you. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Balderson. 

Mr. LAMB. Too soon. 

Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my 

colleague from Michigan. And one of your coaches up there is from 

my hometown, so I agree with you on a couple of things, so thank 

you. 

I am a proud original cosponsor of the Research and Technology 

Subcommittee Chairwoman Haley Stevens’ bill, the American Manufacturing Leadership Act. Because our Nation’s economy relies on 

the manufacturing industry, it must prioritize policies that 

strengthen it. 

In my home State of Ohio the manufacturing industry accounts 

for 16.6 of total output and employs 12.5 percent of our workforce 

or 692,000 employees. All told, manufacturing produced $107 billion worth of output in Ohio in 2017 and continues to grow each 

day. 

H.R. 2397 will strengthen our Nation’s largest investment in advancing manufacturing. The Manufacturing USA program has 

thrived in the past 7 years since its creation and built on that success to strengthen our manufacturing workforce. This bill would reauthorize the successful Revitalize American Manufacturing and 

Innovation of 2014 and extend it to all agencies sponsoring centers 

for manufacturing innovation allowing more of those that invest in 

manufacturing to benefit from this program. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
50 

It would further strengthen the institutes’ role in advanced manufacturing workforce development, something I am deeply passionate about, along with outreach to and inclusion of small and 

medium-sized businesses, which are vital to the American economy. 

H.R. 2397 also puts important checks, balances, and oversight 

into place by encouraging the program office to develop a pilot program for the institutes, as well as identify for and—to best educate 

workforce training practices. It would also expand Manufacturing 

USA’s authorities to collaborate with other agencies, including to 

develop network-wide performance goals. 

In addition, while this bill would authorize agencies to renew institutes for an additional period of funding, allowing those institutes to meet their ultimate goals, this would only be allowed following a redress review of the institutes’ progress toward meeting 

measurable goals. 

The manufacturing industry is a pillar of the American economy 

and drives many of the other industries that make up our country’s 

annual GDP. Without the manufacturing industry, the American 

economy would cease to exist. H.R. 2397 would expand on manufacturing programs with proven success and accelerate our Nation’s 

progress in advancing advanced manufacturing. Ultimately, this 

legislation leverages existing programs across the Federal Government to help Manufacturing USA achieve its goals. 

Finally, as an advocate for small business and workforce development, I’m excited that this bill expands to include more small and 

medium-sized manufacturing since they are the lifeline of our Nation’s economy. 

Once again, I thank the Chair for her support. I thank my colleague from Michigan for her leadership on this legislation and 

urge the Committee’s supportive H.R. 2397. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Balderson. Anyone else? 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair Johnson and Ranking 

Member Lucas. Thank you for being so bipartisan. This Committee 

gives me so much hope. I enjoy every minute I’m in here, and I 

know it’s because the two of you are providing excellent leadership, 

so thank you so much. 

Also, Madam Chair Stevens, for your leadership on this legislation. I also want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Balderson, 

Reed, and Kennedy and the Committee staff on both sides of the 

aisle for their tireless work on this legislation. I’m thrilled to see 

the implementation of provisions addressing workforce needs and 

that the legislation has adopted tailored strategies to reduce the 

growing skills gap in advanced manufacturing. I’m also pleased to 

see that grants awarded by using a competitive merit review process that includes expertise from both the private and public sectors. 

The American Manufacturing Leadership Act is a good piece of 

legislation that prioritizes funding for small and medium-sized 

businesses, the real backbone and pillar of our economy. As our 

manufacturing sector goes, so does our economy and the ability for 

millions of Americans to put food on their table. 

Northeast Ohio relies on the strength of our manufacturing industry with 41,000 people in my district directly working in manufacturing and contributing $2.2 billion annually in payroll. This bill 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
51 

would go a long way in helping my community maintain a competitive edge against competitors abroad. With other countries such as 

China and Germany having a more coordinated effort and ramping 

up their investments to develop advanced manufacturing technologies, we need to do more to ensure our country stays ahead of 

the game and prevails as the leader of the world in the invention 

of technologies. 

Finally, I am glad we are here today working in a bipartisan way 

to tackle the issues of the present and future. I believe we are in 

a pivotal moment where new technologies in digital manufacturing, 

3–D printing, and advanced robotics, just to name a few, are being 

deployed at a rapid pace, and whichever country or countries are 

able to deploy them at the fastest rate is going to win the technology race. 

I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying legislation 

and the competitiveness of American manufacturing. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Any other Members wishing to be recognized? 

Seeing none, then the first amendment on the roster is an 

amendment offered by the gentlelady from Michigan, and you are 

recognized to present your amendment. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The clerk will read the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 1, Manager’s Amendment offered by Ms. Stevens. 

[The amendment of Ms. Stevens follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
52 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 58 here HR121.020
53 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here HR121.021
54 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading, and without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. STEVENS. My amendment makes technical and conforming 

corrections to the underlying bill, the American Manufacturing 

Leadership Act. This amendment also corrects an unintentional disparity where the original bill only authorized funding for the Department of Energy for 4 years, although funding for the National 

Institute for Science and Technology was authorized for 5 years. 

This is corrected, so funding for the Department of Energy is authorized for 5 years as well. And it’s—I think it’s Standards and 

Technology. Thank you. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Are there further 

discussions on the—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. This amendment 

provides technical changes to this legislation and incorporates the 

feedback from relevant stakeholders. I encourage my colleagues to 

support this amendment and yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Any further comments? 

Hearing none, the vote will occur on the amendment. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and he is recognized to offer an 

amendment, Mr. Lamb. 

Mr. LAMB. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The clerk will read the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 2 offered by Mr. Lamb and Mr. 

Gonzalez. 

[The amendment of Mr. Lamb follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
55 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 61 here HR121.022
56 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 62 here HR121.023
57 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

And I recognize the gentleman to explain the amendment. 

Mr. LAMB. Thank you, ma’am. 

I want to thank Ms. Stevens for offering this great bill and for 

giving it probably the perfect title. I think that what this is really 

about is American leadership in manufacturing. I think for a long 

time we were able to get by by having a work force that basically 

suited the needs of manufacturing and by engaging leadership in 

science and basic research and making big jumps ahead, but while 

that was happening, a lot of other places in the world were developing entire manufacturing systems to compete with us, and it all 

came to a head eventually in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio, which are well-represented on this Committee have 

seen a lot of loss for the past couple of generations. And entire 

towns that were supported by the manufacturing system we used 

to have, have been hollowed out and really hurt by this. Families 

have been hurt. 

This is about one way that we can continue to lead the world is 

by providing jobs that actually take care of these families and support whole communities and small towns. And we’ve gotten away 

from that. And a choice faces us now of whether we’re going to step 

up and take the lead on their behalf again in this new world, in 

this world in which we have lost 5 million of these manufacturing 

jobs as the economy has changed and globalization has happened, 

most of them to China. 

I think we can win the jobs that are the future. We’re not going 

to probably get those 5 million back, but we can create another five 

in some of the new industries that are coming. And in western 

Pennsylvania we have a great example of that in the Advanced Robotics Manufacturing Institute that we have mostly at Carnegie 

Mellon University. They have already done great work with companies across the region to help them step up and create more and 

more of these great family sustaining jobs in an area that is vital 

to our national security, as well as our economy. So we want to see 

these programs extended. 

That’s the focus of my amendment really is that these 14 manufacturing institutes that we have, Federal funding is going to dry 

up for some of them at some point. They were not meant to be 

funded fully the way they are now forever. However, some of their 

work must go on, and some of it is of a public good nature because 

they’re working on problems that are longer and more difficult 

than any individual private sector company can do on their own. 

So our goal is to have them be eligible for competitive grants 

from the Federal Government going forward to continue this important work both in advanced robotics like we have in western Pennsylvania but in all the areas that they focus on. 

So that’s the focus of this amendment. I hope that everyone will 

support it, and I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Gonzalez from Ohio, who has helped lead on this amendment. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Lamb, for 

yielding and for partnering with me on this important amendment. 

I agree with everything you just said about the future of American manufacturing and why it’s so important that we invest in the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
58 

future of our economy knowing that we’re competing against 

China, that the economy is changing with automation, 

globalization, et cetera. We need to lead the way, and I believe that 

starts here. 

This amendment would directly help America Makes Center located near my district in Youngstown, Ohio, which is established 

in 2012 to work as a national accelerator for added manufacturing 

and 3D Printing. America Makes should be able to continue its important work even when the Federal funding has ended, and this 

amendment helps the center achieve that. 

Again, I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment, 

I thank Mr. Lamb, and with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Any further comments or request for recognition? 

Hearing none, the vote then occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. 

The next amendment on the roster is Mr. Posey’s amendment, 

and—the gentleman from Florida, and he is recognized for an explanation. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 3 offered by Mr. Posey and Mr. 

Lamb. 

[The amendment of Mr. Posey and Mr. Lamb follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
59 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 65 here HR121.024
60 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading, and without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This amendment introduced by Representative Lamb and me will 

allow this program to corroborate with NASA. The main focus will 

be to strengthen advanced manufacturing and develop a highly 

skilled work force for NASA. 

Advanced manufacturing is the use of innovative technology to 

improve products or processes. One type of manufacturing used by 

the space industry is additive manufacturing. It’s a process that 

adds material to create an object. One subject is 3D Printing that 

we’re all familiar with. Additive manufacturing is a gamechanger 

and would help keep America and particularly America’s space industry in the forefront. This amendment will help NASA to train 

people for these high-tech jobs. 

Additionally, it will help with research and development of this 

emerging technology. For example, this technology is being used 

now on the rocket engine for the Space Launch System that reduces costs and time. One part used to require over 100 welds. 

Now, it has only one weld. Blue Origin and SpaceX are both taking 

advantage of this new technology. This has decreased the time 

from 3 years to only one 3-month period to manufacture this particular part. This is all because of additive manufacturing. 

I’d like to thank Representative Lamb for co-leading with me on 

this amendment, and my thanks go out to you, Madam Chair in 

the Ranking Member, for accepting this important amendment. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

Any other comments on this amendment? 

Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Those opposed, nay. 

Hearing none, then the amendment is adopted. 

We have a Weber amendment next, and—the gentleman from 

Texas, and he is recognized to offer the amendment. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The clerk will read the amendment—report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 4 offered by Mr. Weber. 

[The amendment of Mr. Weber follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
61 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 67 here HR121.025
62 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. And I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This amendment reinstates the sunset for funding provided 

under this legislation. I so appreciated the gentleman from Pennsylvania Conor Lamb’s comments earlier when he said programs 

weren’t meant to be funded forever. This amendment supports the 

original intent of Congress when we established this program. 

We provided finite, finite—and I emphasize finite resources to 

fund manufacturing capabilities for industry to develop new technologies, but once technologies matured, industry was intended to 

take the lead. Now, I’m willing to consider reauthorizing this program for a defined 7-year period, but isn’t it our job as an authorizing Committee to wisely allocate Federal research dollars in the 

long term? And we cannot do that when programs are authorized 

in perpetuity. 

Some of you will remember that Ronald Reagan said the closest 

thing on Earth to eternity was a Federal program, so we want to 

be careful with that. And by the way, at the end of the 7 years, 

Ed Perlmutter would be 73. Today’s his birthday, so we want to 

wish him happy birthday. 

We know that industry has the skills and resources to commercialize new technologies but they often lack the tools and facilities 

needed to develop groundbreaking technologies. So while it makes 

sense to invest in the kinds of capabilities and tools provided by 

these manufacturing innovation centers, eventually industry needs 

to step up to the plate as each area of technology becomes more 

mature. With finite dollars—again I emphasize finite—we cannot 

support new research programs without winding down old ones 

once we reach those technology goals. 

If we fail to provide an end date for a program’s funding, we 

throw a wrench in the research cycle and could actually both eliminate industry’s motivation to bring these new technologies to the 

next stage and inhibit DOE and NIST’s ability to enable innovations in new areas. 

A sunset provision also forces us—that’s Congress—to do our job 

here and regularly reevaluate the legislation we enact to make sure 

programs are all still operating effectively, as well as efficiently. In 

fact, the original sunset provision is why we’re holding a markup 

today on a bill that includes a number of important bipartisan reforms and improvements to the original legislation. We’re making 

those technological changes. We’re mending it. We’re making it better. I think regularly revisiting and updating our work is a good 

thing. 

I believe by adopting my amendment and including a sunset 

after a 7-year period, we take a responsible approach to investing 

taxpayer dollars while retaining our ability to change course within 

the constantly evolving technology landscape. 

So I want to encourage my colleagues to wish Ed a happy birthday and support this amendment. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Weber. I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
63 

Unfortunately, I must oppose it. I heard what you said, and it 

was impressive, just not convincing. The Manufacturing USA program is the United States’ largest investment in advanced manufacturing with an annual investment of Federal funding of around 

$200 million. Moreover, the private sector is already matching that 

investment two-to-one. 

Other countries recognize the value of investing in advanced 

manufacturing and are dedicating 10 times the amount, with Germany operating a $2 billion network of advanced manufacturing institutes. Moreover, these countries are in it for the long term, decades even without any discussion of sunsets. They understand that 

technology development takes time. We didn’t invent the personal 

computer in a day, and we should not expect the development and 

demonstration of advanced manufacturing techniques to occur overnight either. 

Also a matter of policy I do not think we should be putting sunsets in programs that we authorize. The appropriators, with approval by the full Congress, makes decisions on an annual basis as 

to whether a program continues to merit Federal support. Similarly, agencies already have the authority to stop funding any Institute if it is no longer meeting the goals or if it is clear that the 

private sector can and will continue without Federal support. 

Finally, as authorizers, we can always revisit these questions 

ourselves through oversight and further reauthorizations. Putting 

a sunset in a law preemptively is not smart policy if we are committed to ensuring the best return on our Federal investment. Securing long-term financial support for the Manufacturing USA program is our best shot for reclaiming American leadership in advanced manufacturing across the globe. For that reason, I must oppose this amendment and remind us all that this is a reauthorization that we are discussing today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, first, let me note to the Committee 

that I always have a certain hesitation about stepping between two 

Texans who are in a state of disagreement. That can be a challenging position. But I would say this amendment does restore the 

sunset provision of the underlying legislation, and while I’m supportive of the underlying bill, I believe we in Congress do have 

sometimes to make really tough choices, and that includes setting 

limits on how long a program can receive Federal funding. 

This amendment allows for a 7-year reauthorization of funds for 

the Centers of Manufacturing Innovation included in this bill. But 

after that period it transitions funding to the private sector. Sunsets also ensure Congress does its job and regularly reviews authorization. This good government provision was included in the 

original legislation we seek to reauthorize today, so I see no reason 

why we can’t support including it in today’s language. 

With that I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, 

and I continue enthusiasm to support the underlying base bill 

when we’re done. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. 

Any further presentations requested? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
64 

Hearing none, then the vote occurs on the motion of Mr. Weber’s 

motion to put a—on his amendment. 

Those in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, nay. 

The nays have it. 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chair, I’d request a recorded vote. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. A recorded vote has been requested, and 

further proceedings will be postponed, as we announced earlier 

with—at the end of the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Let’s see. 

Do you have another amendment? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, ma’am, I do. Let me jump over to it real quick. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. WEBER. I got to look to my calendar to see who else’s birthday is today. I’ve used up Ed’s. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

My amendment adds a requirement that no additional funds are 

authorized to carry out this legislation. Instead, my amendment directs NIST and DOE to fund the work authorized under this legislation. Oh, I’m sorry. I have an amendment at the desk. Yes. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 5 offered by Mr. Weber. 

[The amendment of Mr. Weber follows:] 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
65 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 71 here HR121.026
66 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 72 here HR121.027
67 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading, and then we’ll ask Mr. Weber to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. WEBER. If you can tell me where I left off, I’ll pick up there. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. I’m trying to make you forget it. 

Mr. WEBER. My amendment adds a requirement that no additional funds are authorized to carry out this legislation. Instead, I 

want to note of course that we have limited funding, finite funding. 

Instead, my amendment directs NIST and DOE to fund the work 

authorized under this legislation using those amounts already appropriated to these agencies without increasing overall spending. 

Did I mention we have a finite source of money? That’s what we’re 

supposed to have. 

Today, DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, is funded at almost $2.4 billion with a B, a budget that 

dwarfs those of the other applied research programs at the Department. Currently, DOE’s Centers for Manufacturing Innovation are 

funded through this office and make up a small part of DOE’s annual $320 million in funding for advanced manufacturing research. 

With our national debt at $22 trillion with a T and climbing with 

a C, we can’t increase overall spending every time we establish priorities for Federal research programs. We just can’t do that. We 

don’t live in a world with unlimited resources, so again, it’s our job 

to prioritize the resources we have and make sure that we are investing limited Federal dollars in programs that actually benefit 

the American taxpayer. 

Now, I think a case can be made for prioritizing the research program and partnerships authorized in this legislation, don’t misunderstand, but it’s very clear that DOE already receives ample 

funding to maintain this program and meet the goals established 

in this bill without another topline spending increase. 

I believe this is a commonsense proposal. It’s Congress’ duty, and 

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Weber. I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. 

My colleague from Texas wants us all to think and act responsibly with Federal funds, and I am very appreciative of that and 

sympathetic to his point of view. However, we have different priorities about where any cuts or restrictions should apply, and this 

particular amendment is not one that I can support. If anything, 

we were very conservative in the funding level we did to recommend for this legislation. Many stakeholders are pushing us to 

include enough funds for many more institutes, not just a few. 

As a general policy matter, I’m concerned both about imposing 

unfunded mandates on agencies and setting a hard cap on the program funding rather than leaving agencies some flexibility to update investment priorities as the needs occur. If we disagree with 

decisions being made by any agency under any administration, the 

Committee has the authority and the responsibility to take action 

at that time. However, imposing funding restrictions in advance is 

not a good way to support research and development and ensure 

success of Manufacturing USA program. 

I also want to point out that we are not spending money on these 

bills. That is the job of the Appropriations Committee. If they deVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR121.XXX HR121

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
68 

cide the Manufacturing USA program is worthy of additional support, they can find money in a broader array of accounts than our 

Committee is jurisdictionally permitted to access. I don’t think we 

should be placing limitations on the Appropriations Committee to 

make these decisions. 

And so for those reasons I oppose this amendment, and I yield 

back. Any further—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

This amendment would require funding authorized in the bill to 

be provided from within existing authorized levels of NIST and 

DOE and, as with the previous amendment, I believe it’s a good 

government provision. We do not have unlimited funds available, 

as our colleague from Texas has noted, and it’s our job in Congress 

to occasionally make tough choices about our top priorities, and 

this amendment would allow us to specifically authorize what I believe is important manufacturing research without increasing overall spending in these agencies. 

No legislation is perfect, and I am supportive of this legislation. 

We still have some areas of disagreement on the best way to 

prioritize our research, but as I close, I’d like to reiterate my gratitude to Chairwoman Johnson and Chairwoman Stevens for working with our Members and staff to incorporate many of the changes 

we requested in this legislation. I appreciate your commitment to 

moving a bipartisan bill forward through this Committee, and with 

that, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and 

yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. 

Any further comments requested? 

Hearing none, then the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. 

It appears that the noes have it. 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr.—— 

Mr. WEBER. I would request a recorded vote. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you. Further proceedings on this 

will be postponed until we do the votes at the end. Thank you very 

much. 

H.R. 1237 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. We will now consider H.R. 1237, the 

COAST Research Act. The clerk will report the bill. 

The CLERK. H.R. 1237. 

[The bill follows:] 

All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and it’s agreed to 

Are there any further amendments to the bill? 

If not, then a reporting quorum being present, I move that the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology report H.R. 988, as 

amended, to the House, with a recommendation that the bill be approved. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
69 

Those opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 

I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make 

any necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill. Without objection, so ordered. 

Members will have 2 subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplementary minority or additional views on the measure. 

And we’re going to recess for 10 minutes, and then we’ll come 

back and have the roll call votes, and so the purpose of making 

sure everyone is notified that a vote will be occurring. So we’re in 

recess. We’re trying to finish before the House goes in session. 

[Recess.] 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The Committee will come to order. 

We are reassembled for the consideration of two amendments. 

The question is on the Weber number 4 amendment, and the clerk 

will report—well, I guess just call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairwoman Johnson? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairwoman Johnson, no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici, no. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera, no. 

Mr. Lamb? 

Mr. LAMB. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamb, no. 

Mrs. Fletcher? 

Mrs. FLETCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fletcher, no. 

Ms. Stevens? 

Ms. STEVENS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Stevens, no. 

Ms. Horn? 

Ms. HORN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Horn, no. 

Ms. Sherrill? 

Ms. SHERRILL. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sherrill, no. 

Mr. Sherman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen, no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney, no. 

Mr. Perlmutter? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
70 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. For my good friend Mr. Weber, no. 

Mr. WEBER. Happy birthday to you, too. 

The CLERK. Mr. Perlmutter, no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Foster? 

Mr. FOSTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Foster, no. 

Mr. Beyer? 

Mr. BEYER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Beyer, no. 

Mr. Crist? 

Mr. CRIST. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crist, no. 

Mr. Casten? 

Mr. CASTEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Casten, no. 

Ms. Hill? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McAdams? 

Mr. MCADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McAdams, no. 

Ms. Wexton? 

Ms. WEXTON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wexton, no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Lucas, aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks, aye. 

Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey, aye. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber, aye. 

Mr. Babin? 

Mr. BABIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Babin, aye. 

Mr. Biggs? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Marshall? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Norman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cloud? 

Mr. CLOUD. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cloud, aye. 

Mr. Balderson? 

Mr. BALDERSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Balderson, aye. 

Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson, aye. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
71 

Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez, aye. 

Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Waltz, aye. 

Mr. Baird? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Herrera Butler, aye. 

Ms. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n? 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ–COLO ́ N. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, aye. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Are there Members who haven’t voted or 

would like to change their vote? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski, no. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Tonko, no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko, no. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Any other Members? 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Mr. Baird votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird, aye. 

Mr. BAIRD. Aye. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. All reported, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Madam Chair Johnson? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Yes. 

The CLERK. The noes are 20 and the ayes are 13. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The noes have it. The amendment is not 

adopted. 

The vote now will occur on amendment number 5 by Mr. Weber. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairwoman Johnson? 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairwoman Johnson, no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski, no. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Bonamici, no. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bera, no. 

Mr. Lamb? 

Mr. LAMB. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamb, no. 

Mrs. Fletcher? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
72 

Mrs. FLETCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fletcher, no. 

Ms. Stevens? 

Ms. STEVENS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Stevens, no. 

Ms. Horn? 

Ms. HORN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Horn, no. 

Ms. Sherrill? 

Ms. SHERRILL. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sherrill, no. 

Mr. Sherman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cohen, no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney, no. 

Mr. Perlmutter? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Perlmutter, no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko, no. 

Mr. Foster? 

Mr. FOSTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Foster, no. 

Mr. Beyer? 

Mr. BEYER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Beyer, no. 

Mr. Crist? 

Mr. CRIST. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crist, no. 

Mr. Casten? 

Mr. CASTEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Casten, no. 

Ms. Hill? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McAdams? 

Mr. MCADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McAdams, no. 

Ms. Wexton? 

Ms. WEXTON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wexton, no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas, aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks, aye. 

Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Posey, aye. 

Mr. Weber? 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
73 

Mr. WEBER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weber, aye. 

Mr. Babin? 

Mr. BABIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Babin, aye. 

Mr. Biggs? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Marshall? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Marshall, aye. 

Mr. Norman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cloud? 

Mr. CLOUD. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cloud, aye. 

Mr. Balderson? 

Mr. BALDERSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Balderson, aye. 

Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson, aye. 

Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez, aye. 

Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Waltz, aye. 

Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird, aye. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Herrera Butler, aye. 

Ms. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n? 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ–COLO ́ N. Aye. 

The CLERK. Aye—Ms. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, aye. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Are there any other Members who 

haven’t voted or would like to change the vote? 

The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, the noes are 20 and the ayes 

are 14. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. The motion—the amendment is not 

adopted. 

A reporting quorum being present, I move that the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology report 23—H.R. 2397, as amended, 

to the House with the recommendation that the bill will be approved. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table, 

and I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make 

any necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill. Without objection, so ordered. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
74 

Members will have 2 subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplementary minority or additional views on the measure. 

Our business is now completed, and the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS