39–006

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–64

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997

APRIL 21, 1997.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on Science,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1274]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.

1274) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of

Standards and Technology for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 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 ................................................................................................. 1

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

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

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 6

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 8

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 9

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis and Committee Views ................................. 9

VIII. Committee Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 17

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 18

X. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 20

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 20

XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight .............................................................. 20

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 21

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 21
2

XV. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 21

XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 21

XVII. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 24

XVIII. Additional views by Hon. Tom Coburn ..................................................... 25

XIX. Additional Views ......................................................................................... 26

XX. Results of Roll Call Vote Taken at Full Committee Markup on April

16, 1997 .................................................................................................... 28

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997’’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH

AND SERVICES.

(a) LABORATORY ACTIVITIES.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services laboratory activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—

(1) $278,563,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which—

(A) $38,104,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical Engineering;

(B) $18,925,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;

(C) $31,791,000 shall be for Chemical Science and Technology;

(D) $30,372,000 shall be for Physics;

(E) $50,914,000 shall be for Material Science and Engineering;

(F) $13,404,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;

(G) $47,073,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics;

(H) $19,376,000 shall be for Technical Assistance; and

(I) $28,604,000 shall be for Research Support; and

(2) $286,919,890 for fiscal year 1999, of which—

(A) $39,247,120 shall be for Electronics and Electrical Engineering;

(B) $19,492,750 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;

(C) $32,744,730 shall be for Chemical Science and Technology;

(D) $31,283,160 shall be for Physics;

(E) $52,441,420 shall be for Material Science and Engineering;

(F) $13,806,120 shall be for Building and Fire Research;

(G) $48,485,190 shall be for Computer Science and Applied Mathematics;

(H) $19,957,280 shall be for Technical Assistance; and

(I) $29,462,120 shall be for Research Support.

(b) MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY PROGRAM.—There are authorized to be

appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act

of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)—

(1) $4,134,500 for fiscal year 1998; and

(2) $5,289,000 for fiscal year 1999.

(c) CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.—(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction and maintenance of facilities

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—

(A) $16,692,000 for fiscal year 1998; and

(B) $67,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.

(2) None of the funds authorized by paragraph (1)(B) for construction of facilities

may be obligated unless the Secretary of Commerce has certified to the Committee

on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation of the Senate that the obligation of funds is consistent

with a plan for meeting the facilities needs of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology that the Secretary has transmitted to those committees.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

FOR TECHNOLOGY.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the activities of the Under Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy—

(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and

(2) $7,205,000 for fiscal year 1999.
3

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Industrial Technology Services activities of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology—

(1) $302,900,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which—

(A) $185,100,000 shall be for the Advanced Technology Program under

section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278n); and

(B) $117,800,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships

program under sections 25 and 26 of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 2781); and

(2) $261,300,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which—

(A) $150,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technology Program under

section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278n); and

(B) $111,300,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships

program under sections 5 and 26 of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l).

SEC. 5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT AMENDMENTS.

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘or contracts’’ in subsection (b)(1)(B), and inserting in lieu

thereof ‘‘contracts, and, subject to the last sentence of this subsection, other

transactions’’;

(2) by inserting ‘‘and if the non-Federal participants in the joint venture agree

to pay at least 60 percent of the total costs of the joint venture during the Federal participation period under this section, which shall not exceed 5 years,’’ in

subsection (b)(1)(B) after ‘‘participation to be appropriate,’’;

(3) by striking ‘‘(ii) provision of a minority share of the cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years, and (iii)’’ in subsection (b)(1)(B), and inserting in lieu

thereof ‘‘and (ii)’’;

(4) by striking ‘‘and cooperative agreements’’ in subsection (b)(2), and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘, cooperative agreements, and, subject to the last sentence

of this subsection, other transactions’’;

(5) by striking ‘‘, provided that emphasis is’’ in subsection (b)(2) and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘on the condition that grant recipients (other than small businesses within the meaning of the Small Business Act) provide at least 60 percent of the costs of the project, with emphasis’’;

(6) by adding after subsection (b)(4) the following:

‘‘The authority under paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) to enter into other transactions shall apply only if the Secretary, acting through the Director, determines

that standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements are not feasible or appropriate, and only when other transaction instruments incorporate terms and conditions that reflect the use of generally accepted commercial accounting and auditing

practices.’’;

(7) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ‘‘and be of a nature and scope that would

not be pursued in a timely manner without Federal assistance’’ after ‘‘technical

merit’’; and

(8) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

‘‘(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B) and subsection (d)(3), the Director may

grant extensions beyond the deadlines established under those provisions for joint

venture and single applicant awardees to expend Federal funds to complete their

projects, if such extension may be granted with no additional cost to the Federal

Government and it is in the Federal Government’s interest to do so.

‘‘(l) The Secretary, acting through the Director, may vest title to tangible personal

property in any recipient of financial assistance under this section if—

‘‘(1) the property is purchased with funds provided under this section; and

‘‘(2) the Secretary, acting through the Director, determines that the vesting

of such property furthers the objectives of the Institute.

Vesting under this subsection shall be subject to such limitations as are prescribed

by the Secretary, acting through the Director, and shall be made without further

obligation to the United States Government.’’.

(b) ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT.—(1) Section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is further amended by striking the period

at the end of the first sentence of subsection (d)(11)(A) and inserting in lieu thereof

the following: ‘‘or any other participant in a joint venture receiving financial assist-
4

ance under this section, as agreed by the parties, notwithstanding the requirements

of section 202(a) and (b) of title 35, United States Code.’’.

(2) The amendment made by this subsection shall be effective only with respect

to assistance for which solicitations for proposals are made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM CENTER EXTENSION.

Section 25(c)(5) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by striking ‘‘, which are designed’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘operation of a Center.’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘. After the sixth year,

a Center may receive additional financial support under this section if it has received a positive evaluation through an independent review, under procedures established by the Institute. Such an independent review shall be required at least

every two years after the sixth year of operation. Funding received for a fiscal year

under this section after the sixth year of operation shall not exceed the proportion

of the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs of the Center received

by the Center during its sixth year of operation.’’.

SEC. 7. MALCOLM BALDRIGE QUALITY AWARD.

Section 17(c)(3) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15

U.S.C. 3711a(c)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, unless the Secretary determines that

a third award is merited and can be given at no additional cost to the Federal Government’’ after ‘‘in any year’’.

SEC. 8. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.

None of the funds authorized by this Act, or any other Act enacted before the date

of the enactment of this Act, may be used for the Next Generation Internet. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, funds may be used for the continuation of programs and activities that were funded and carried out during fiscal year 1997.

SEC. 9. LIMITATIONS.

(a) PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.—None of the funds authorized by this

Act shall be available for any activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the Congress, except that this subsection shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating

to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the

proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.

(b) LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.—No sums are authorized to be appropriated

to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal years

1998 and 1999 for the activities for which sums are authorized by this Act, unless

such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by this Act.

(c) ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology shall exclude from consideration for grant agreements made by the

Institute after fiscal year 1997 any person who received funds, other than those

described in paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1997,

under a grant agreement from any Federal funding source for a project that was

not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from

consideration pursuant to this subsection shall be effective for a period of 5

years after the person receives such Federal funds.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the receipt of Federal funds

by a person due to the membership of that person in a class specified by law

for which assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a formula

provided by law.

(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘grant agreement’’

means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value

to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of

the United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or

a cooperative research and development agreement (as such term is defined in

section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15

U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 10. NOTICE.

(a) NOTICE OF REPROGRAMMING.—If any funds authorized by this Act are subject

to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to the Appropriations

Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action
5

shall concurrently be provided to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate.

(b) NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION.—The Secretary of Commerce shall provide notice

to the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of Representatives,

and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Appropriations

of the Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of Congress that the National

Institute of Standards and Technology should—

(1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-related problems in its computer systems to ensure that those systems continue to operate effectively in

the year 2000 and beyond;

(2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the operations of the Institute

posed by the problems referred to in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for

achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of its mission-critical systems; and

(3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the Institute is unable

to correct in time.

SEC. 12. BUY AMERICAN.

(a) COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.—No funds appropriated pursuant to

this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending

the assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March

3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a–10c, popularly known as the ‘‘Buy American Act’’).

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—In the case of any equipment or products that may be

authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this Act, it is

the sense of Congress that entities receiving such assistance should, in expending

the assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and products.

(c) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—In providing financial assistance

under this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to: (1) authorize appropriations for Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 1999 for the programs of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of the

Under Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy

(US/OTP); and (2) make appropriate revisions to statutes governing

NIST’s programs.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

NIST is the Nation’s oldest federal laboratory. It was established

by Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).

NBS was renamed NIST by the passage of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Act also expanded NIST’s scope

by establishing both the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and

the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP).

NIST is part of the Department of Commerce. Its mission is to

promote economic growth by working with industry to develop and

apply technology, measurements, and standards. As the Nation’s

arbiter of standards, NIST enables our country’s businesses to engage each other in commerce and participate in the global marketplace.

The precise measurements required for establishing standards

associated with today’s increasingly complex technologies require

NIST laboratories to maintain the most sophisticated equipment

and most talented scientists in the world. To date, NIST has succeeded, and the science conducted by the Institute is a vital compo-
6

nent of the Nation’s civilian research and technology development

base.

Maintaining this standard requires continued funding. Currently,

none of NIST programs have specific authorizations for FY 1998 or

FY 1999. H.R. 1274 provides the needed authorizations to ensure

NIST has a clear understanding of what the Congress currently expects of it and maintains its high quality of standards. The bill also

provides express authorization for 1998 and 1999 for the Office of

the Under Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology

Policy.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the

first of two hearings to assess the funding requirements for the Department of Commerce Technology Administration in FY 1998 and

beyond, as well as review the effectiveness of programs under the

Technology Administration. Dr. Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for

Technology, Department of Commerce, testified.

In her testimony, Dr. Good said that NIST laboratories are the

‘‘crown jewels’’ of the Technology Administration’s programs. She

testified in support of the Administration’s FY 1998 budget request

but stated that she would not comment on the Administration’s

out-year budget numbers. (A chart compiled by Committee staff of

the Administration’s budget recommendations for the programs of

the Technology Administration follows.) She noted that many of the

NIST buildings, since they were all constructed about the same

time and almost 40 years ago, are in need of major repair and refurbishing. She also addressed the need for the ATP, MEP and the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program. She also noted that

since the Office of Technology Assessment was closed, the Technology Administration is the only group doing domestic and international technology assessments. The Technology Administration,

she stated, has been streamlined to be more efficient.

[The table referred to follows:]

TABLE 1.—DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

[Dollars in millions]

Technology Admin.

Fiscal years—

1997 (appropriated) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Percent

change

1997–

2002

US/OTP ........................................................................................... $9.5 $9.2 $9.2 $9.2 $9.2 $9.2 ¥3

NIST:

ITS (ATP) ............................................................................... 225.0 275.6 320.0 350.1 420.3 500.1 122

ITS (MEP) .............................................................................. 95.0 123.4 116.8 98.2 95.5 96.0 1

STRS (Labs) .......................................................................... 265.0 271.6 271.6 276.6 280.5 286.6 8

STRS (Baldrige) ..................................................................... 3.0 5.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 217

Construction .......................................................................... (16.0) 16.7 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 (1)

TA/NIST Total .................................................................... 581.5 701.8 744.1 760.6 833.0 919.4 58

1 Not applicable.

On April 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held its second hearing entitled, ‘‘Funding Needs for the National Institute of

Standards and Technology Part 2,’’ to receive testimony from out-
7

side witnesses on the funding requirements for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and to review the Administration’s FY 1998 budget request and out-year budget projections

through FY 2002. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of

NIST programs such as the ATP and the MEP program.

Witnesses included: Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for Energy,

Resource and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO); Mr. Claude Barfield, Director, Science and Technology Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. W.C. Dyer, Director, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Professor Michael

Borrus, Co-Director of BRIE, University of California at Berkeley;

and Dr. Michael Gough, Director of Science and Risk Studies,

CATO.

Mr. Allen Li stated that GAO was releasing a report entitled Performance Measurement: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED–97–91). This report highlights the difficulty

in measuring the impact of technology programs like the ATP and

MEP. While not specifically addressing ATP and MEP, the report

released on performance measurement shows that there is no single indicator or evaluation that adequately captures the results of

R&D. Mr. Li also discuss GAO’s reports on ATP. Mr. Li stated that

ATP ‘‘funded research projects that would have been funded by the

private sector, as well as those that would not.’’ He went on to

state that 63% of the ATP applicants surveyed indicated that they

did not look for private financing before turning to the government

for an ATP grant. Further, roughly half of the ATP applicants surveyed indicated that they would go forward with their projects, although not always at the same pace, even without ATP grant funding. The GAO findings are found in two reports: Efforts to Evaluate

the Advanced Technology Program (GAO/RCED–95–68) and The

Advanced Technology Program and Private Sector Funding (GAO/

RCED–96–47).

Mr. Claude Barfield addressed the importance of the ATP program in relation to overall U.S. technology policy, the role of government in constructing a technology policy for the United States,

and the wisdom of linking ATP with the traditional NIST laboratory functions. He stated while calling for the ATP budget to more

than double between 1998 and 2002, that the Administration will

allow the budget of the NIST labs to decline substantially in real

terms over that same period. Given the more important contribution of the labs to long-term productivity and competitiveness of

U.S. industry, it seems to him a mistake to give higher priority to

more politically popular grant programs such as ATP.

Mr. W.C. Dyer testified with regard to the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (MMTC) and the MEP program. He stated

that without the services provided by MMTC many small firms

would find it difficult to modernize. If his center loses federal support, it will have to charge higher fees for services and, therefore,

many small businesses will not be able to afford its services. The

MEP program emphasizes practical, cost-effective solutions for

smaller manufactures.

Professor Michael Borrus stated that continued U.S. leadership

in technology development is essential for the long-term growth of

the domestic economy and for continued competitive success of U.S.
8

industry in global markets. He spoke in favor of ATP and MEP.

International developments make continued support especially urgent. He said that interventionist governments abroad and growing

foreign government commitments to technology spending threaten

to supplant the United States as the sources of long-term technical

progress.

Dr. Michael Gough advocated the abolishment of ATP. He noted

that there is no justification for ATP. ATP simply tries to pick winners and losers, and lavishes taxpayer money on winners. He noted

further that the problems ATP is intended to address may not

exist. In any case, the ATP solution is unnecessary, and the measures of ATP success do not reflect the objectives of the program. He

stated that ATP could be eliminated with no damage done to the

economy of the country, with tax savings, and with the potential

for more private investment in R&D. He said that according to the

National Science Board, total expenditures on R&D in 1993

amounted to 2.5 percent of GDP. With GDP being roughly $6 trillion, private and public spending on R&D was about $150 billion.

Dr. Gough stated that, ‘‘it is nothing but silly to think that ATP’s

expenditure of $70 million in that year would have made any difference at all.’’ He stated further that if Congress wants to favor

R&D, it could do so more directly and with greater chance of success by paying attention to tax policy and regulation.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On April 16, 1997, the Committee on Science convened to mark

up H.R. 1274, The National Institute of Standards and Technology

Authorization Act of 1997, providing authorizations of appropriations for FY 1998 and FY 1999 for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of the Under Secretary

for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy. Of the four

amendments offered, one was defeated by roll call and three were

adopted by voice vote.

1. Mrs. Morella and Mr. Gordon offered an en bloc amendment

to: clarify that the limitation on obligating money for construction

in FY 1999 only applies to construction and not maintenance

money; clarify that the 60% matching requirement in the bill only

applies to the ATP joint ventures and not other joint ventures; exempt small businesses from the 60% match requirement for single

ATP applicants; clarify that in assessing whether an ATP project

would go forward without federal funding the panel reviewing the

grant application should consider the timing of the project; allow

federal equipment purchased as part of an ATP grant to vest with

an ATP grant recipient after the conclusion of the project so long

as its value is considered part of the new 40% federal match requirement; allow entities other than businesses (such as universities) which are ATP joint venture participants to share in any

proceeds from patents which are a result of the joint venture; allow

three Baldrige awards to be given in each subcategory in each year

if they are merited and the awarding results in no additional expense to the Federal Government; make technical corrections to the

Next Generation Internet language; clarify that Cooperative Research Agreements (CRADAs) are not subject to the new merit

based review process in the bill; and make technical corrections to
9

the authorization limitation language in the bill. The amendment

was agreed to by voice vote.

2. Ms. Stabenow offered an amendment to increase the authorization for the ATP for FY 1998 from $185,100,000 to $225,000,000;

and strike without prejudice the ATP authorization of $150,000,000

for FY 1999. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 20

to 19.

3. Mr. Boehlert and Mr. McHale, offered an amendment to strike

section 6 of the bill and replace it with a provision permanently

lifting the 6-year sunset provision for the MEP program centers

and revising the review criteria in section 6 of H.R. 1274 for the

centers which had reached their 6-year life cycles. The amendment

was adopted by voice vote.

4. Mr. Hastings offered an amendment by Mr. Traficant to require any entity that is appropriated funds pursuant to this act or

amendments thereto, to comply with sections 2–4 of the Act of

March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a–10c, popularly known as the ‘‘Buy

American Act’’). The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent.

With a quorum present, Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that H.R.

1274, as amended, be ordered reported. The motion was adopted by

voice vote.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 1274 authorizes $278,563,000 for NIST laboratory functions

in FY 1998 and $286,919,890 in FY 1999.

H.R. 1274 authorizes $4,134,500 in FY 1998 and $5,289,000 in

FY 1999 for the Baldrige National Quality Program.

H.R. 1274 authorizes $16,692,000 for maintenance in FY 1998

and $67,000,000 for maintenance and needed infrastructure improvements in FY 1999.

H.R. 1274 authorizes $7,000,000 for FY 1998 and $7,205,000 for

FY 1999 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Technology and

the Office of Technology Policy.

H.R. 1274 authorizes $117,800,000 for the MEP program in FY

1998 and $111,300,000 in FY 1999.

H.R. 1274 lifts the 6-year sunset provision for MEP centers.

H.R. 1274 authorizes funding of $185,100,000 and $150,000,000

for FY 1998 and 1999, respectively, for the ATP.

H.R. 1274 increases the ATP match requirement to 60 percent

for non-small business grant recipient and joint ventures and stipulates grants can only be awarded to projects that would not proceed

in a timely manner without federal assistance.

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND COMMITTEE VIEWS

Section 1. Short Title

The short title of the bill is the ‘‘National Institute of Standards

and Technology Authorization Act of 1997.’’

Section 2. Authorization of Appropriations for Scientific and Technical Research and Services

Section 2 (a) authorizes funding for NIST laboratory activities for

Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 1999.
10

Section 2(a)(1) authorizes $278,563,000 for laboratory activities

in FY 1998. Of that total:

(A) $38,104,000 is for the Electronics and Electrical Engineering program;

(B) $18,925,000 is for the Manufacturing Engineering

program;

(C) $31,791,000 is for the Chemical Science and Technology program;

(D) $30,372,000 is for the Physics program;

(E) $50,914,000 is for the Material Science and Engineering program;

(F) $13,404,000 is for the Building and Fire Research

program;

(G) $47,073,000 is for the Computer Science and Applied

Mathematics program;

(H) $19,376,000 is for Technical Assistance activities;

and

(I) $28,604,000 is for Research Support activities;

Section 2(a)(2) authorizes $286,919,890 for laboratory activities

in FY 1999. Of that total:

(J) $39,247,120 is for the Electronics and Electrical Engineering program;

(K) $19,492,750 is for the Manufacturing Engineering

program;

(L) $32,744,730 is for the Chemical Science and Technology program;

(M) $31,283,160 is for the Physics program;

(N) $52,441,420 is for the Material Science and Engineering program;

(O) $13,806,120 is for the Building and Fire Research

program;

(P) $48,485,190 is for the Computer Science and Applied

Mathematics program;

(Q) $19,957,280 is for Technical Assistance activities;

and

(R) $29,462,120 is for Research Support activities;

Section 2(b) authorizes $4,134,500 in FY 1998 and $5,289,000 in

FY 1999 for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program.

Section 2(c):

(1) authorizes $16,692,000 in FY 1998 and $67,000,000

in FY 1999 for construction and maintenance of NIST facilities;

(2) requires that the Secretary of Commerce certify to

the House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce that all of the FY 1999 construction

funds are being used in a manner consistent with NIST’s

facilities plan.
11

Committee Views

NIST Laboratories

The Committee views the NIST laboratory programs as the

‘‘crown jewels’’ of the Technology Administration. The Committee

supports the following authorization levels for NIST Laboratory

Programs in FY 1998. (For further information, see Table 2, which

follows:)

TABLE 2

Program Appropriated FY

1997

Administration

FY 1998 request

H.R. 1274 FY

1998

Change FY

1998 vs. FY

1997

Electronics and Electrical Engineering ................................... $35,795,000 $38,104,000 $38,104,000 $2,309,000

Manufacturing Engineering ..................................................... 18,903,000 18,925,000 18,925,000 22,000

Chemical Sciences and Technologies ..................................... 31,759,000 31,791,000 31,791,000 32,000

Physics .................................................................................... 27,846,000 27,872,000 30,372,000 2,526,000

Material Sciences .................................................................... 50,867,000 50,914,000 50,914,000 47,000

Building and Fire .................................................................... 13,389,000 13,404,000 13,404,000 15,000

Computer Science and Applied Mathematics ......................... 43,026,000 43,073,000 47,073,000 4,047,000

Technical Assistance ............................................................... 14,863,000 18,876,000 19,376,000 4,513,000

Research Support .................................................................... 28,572,000 28,604,000 28,604,000 32,000

NIST Laboratories ....................................................... 265,020,000 271,563,000 278,563,000 13,543,000

The Committee supports a $2,500,000 increase in FY 1998 from

the levels recommended by the Administration for the Physics program to support reengineering measurement services to simplify

the delivery of measurement assurance at the point of use. This

initiative should increase the accuracy and lower the cost of calibration for the end users of NIST standards.

The Committee supports a $4,000,000 increase in FY 1998 from

the levels recommended by the Administration for the Computer

Science and Applied Mathematics program to augment NIST work

in the field of computer security. The increase is intended to enable

NIST, through its programs, to improve computer security throughout the Federal Government.

The Committee supports a $500,000 increase in FY 1998 from

the levels recommended by the Administration for the Technical

Assistance program to support improving measurement standards

to facilitate international trade and provide additional funding to

implement the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

of 1995.

The Committee supports the following authorizations for NIST

laboratory programs in FY 1999. These funding levels represent a

3 percent increase over the FY 1998 levels authorized by the bill.

(See Table 3, which follows:)

TABLE 3

Program H.R. 1274 FY

1998

H.R. 1274 FY

1999

Change FY

1999 vs. FY

1998

Electronics and Electrical Engineering ............................................................. $38,104,000 $39,247,120 $1,143,120

Manufacturing Engineering ............................................................................... 18,925,000 19,492,750 567,750

Chemical Sciences and Technologies ............................................................... 31,791,000 32,744,730 953,730

Physics ............................................................................................................... 30,372,000 31,283,160 911,160

Material Sciences .............................................................................................. 50,914,000 52,441,420 1,527,420
12

TABLE 3—Continued

Program H.R. 1274 FY 1998

H.R. 1274 FY 1999

Change FY

1999 vs. FY 1998

Building and Fire ............................................................................................... 13,404,000 13,806,120 402,120

Computer Science and Applied Mathematics ................................................... 47,073,000 48,485,190 1,412,190

Technical Assistance ......................................................................................... 19,376,000 19,957,280 581,280

Research Support .............................................................................................. 28,604,000 29,462,120 858,120

NIST Laboratories ................................................................................. 278,563,000 286,919,890 8,356,890

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program

The Committee has authorized an additional $1,154,500 in FY

1998 and FY 1999 to enable NIST to expand the Baldrige National

Quality Program into education and healthcare over the next 2

years.

Maintenance and Construction

The Committee believes addressing NIST’s infrastructure needs

is a priority. The Committee supports authorization levels of

$16,692,000 in FY 1998 and $67,000,000 in FY 1999 for construction and maintenance of NIST facilities. Of the FY 1999 total, the

Committee supports using $17,000,000 for maintenance and, subject to the limitations of section 2(c)(2), $50,000,000 for priority infrastructure needs.

Section 3. Authorization for the Office of the Under Secretary for

Technology

Section 3 authorizes $7,000,000 for FY 1998 and $7,205,000 for

FY 1999 for the Office of the Undersecretary for Technology and

the Office of Technology Policy.

Committee Views

The Committee supports funding levels of $7,000,000 for FY 1998

and $7,205,000 for FY 1999 for the Office of the Undersecretary for

Technology and the Office of Technology Policy. The Committee has

not authorized any funding for the $1,700,000 Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) or the

$350,000 program to support the Administration’s foreign policy

initiatives through economic development.

Section 4. Authorization of Appropriations for Industrial Technology Services

Section 4 authorizes funding for both the ATP and the MEP program in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.
13

(3) Authorizes $302,900,000 for the ATP and MEP in FY

1998 of which:

(A) $185,100,000 is for the ATP; and

(B) $117,800,000 is for MEP.

(1) Authorizes $261,300,000 for the ATP and MEP in FY

1999 of which:

(A) $150,000,000 is for the ATP; and

(B) $111,300,000 is for MEP.

Committee Views

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

The Committee believes the MEP program has been successful at

enhancing the commercial viability of the Nation’s small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses. The Committee supports a

funding level for the MEP program of $117,800,000 in FY 1998.

The authorization is intended to fully fund existing eligible MEP

centers and the costs associated with administering the MEP program. The Committee has not provided increased funding for supply chain optimization, information technology, and technology infusion.

In FY 1999 the Committee supports a funding level for MEP of $111,300,000. The authorization is intended to fully fund existing

eligible MEP centers and the costs associated with administering

the MEP program.

Advanced Technology Program

The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the

ATP. As of FY 1996, more than $1.6 billion has been appropriated

for the program, yet it continues to be plagued by fundamental

questions about its effectiveness in promoting long-term, high-risk

technology research. Since its inception, the program has been unable to expend all its appropriated funds, and has been forced to

carry-over unobligated balances as large as $168 million from one

fiscal year to the next. Further, its carryover of unexpended obligations has been increasing since 1995. By the end of FY 1997, unexpended obligations are estimated by the GAO to total over $440

million. The Committee is interested in future inquiry on the issue

of $440 million in unexpended obligations to determine whether or

not such balances are excessive or reflect the Agency’s programmatic requirements. In an era of scarce federal research and

development dollars, funding ATP is simply a low priority.

While the Committee has authorized $185,100,000 for the ATP

in FY 1998, the level represents a $40 million reduction from FY

1997. In FY 1999, the Committee supports a funding level of

$150,000,000 for the ATP.

Section 5. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act

Amendments

Section 5(a) amends the NIST Act provisions which govern the

ATP to:

(1) allow ATP grants to be given for contracts and ‘‘other

transactions’’;
14

(2) increase the match requirements for ATP grants for

joint ventures to 60 percent;

(3) make conforming changes to the act associated with

(2);

(4) allows ATP grants to be given for cooperative agreements and ‘‘other transactions’’;

(5) increase the match requirements for ATP grants for

single recipients (with the exception of small businesses) to

60 percent;

(6) specify that ‘‘other transactions’’ should only be used

if standard contracts, grants or cooperative agreements are

not feasible or appropriate;

(7) require that, as part of the merit review which occurs

in advance of any ATP grant award, the reviewers determine that the research project in question would not go

forward in a timely manner without federal assistance;

(8) allow grants to be expanded beyond the 5 year deadline to finish up projects so long as it results in no additional cost to the Federal Government and it is in the Federal Government’s best interest.

(9) allow the Secretary of Commerce to vest title to tangible personal property in ATP grant recipients so long as

(1) the property is purchased as part of the ATP grant; and

(2) the Secretary of Commerce determines that the vesting

furthers the objectives of NIST.

The Secretary may place limitations on the vesting made under

this subsection and the vesting shall be made with no additional

cost to the Federal Government.

Section 5(b). Additional Amendments

(1) amends the NIST Act provisions which govern the ATP to

also allow non-industry joint venture participants such as universities and independent research organizations to, as agreed by the

parties to the joint-venture, share in any intellectual property

rights arising from the joint venture.

(2) stipulates that the provisions of (1) is not retroactive.

Committee Views

Advanced Technology Program Statutory Revisions

The Committee is concerned with the findings of the GAO on

ATP. GAO found that 63% of the ATP applicants surveyed had not

sought private sector funding before applying for an ATP grant.

Further, GAO found that roughly half of the ATP applicants surveyed reported that they would go forward with their projects even

in the absence of ATP grant funding.

The Committee, therefore, supports limiting ATP grants to longterm, high-risk projects that could not successfully proceed without

federal assistance. The Committee further supports leveraging ATP

funds by requiring joint ventures and non-small business single applicants to contribute 60% to the cost of every ATP project.

Additionally, the Committee supports granting intellectual property rights associated with ATP joint ventures to universities participating in those ventures.
15

The Committee further notes that the dollar value of any property vested in an ATP grant recipient by the Secretary of Commerce under the new section 28(l) of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology Act established under this section must

count in calculating the new 40% federal share cap for ATP

awards.

Section 6. Limited Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Center Extension

Section 6 allows MEP centers which reach their 6-year life-cycles

to continue to receive funds if the centers receive a positive evaluation through an independent review. The centers must be reviewed

at least every 2 years under a process established by NIST. The

federal funding for the centers after they have reached their 6-year

life-cycles shall not exceed 331⁄3%.

Committee Views

The Committee continues to support the MEP program. The

Committee expects that the reviews conducted under section 6 of

this bill will be both thorough and independent. The Committee

notes that the 331⁄3% cap on federal contributions to all centers

which have exhausted their original 6-year life-cycles is a ceiling.

The Committee supports efforts to make individual centers more

self-sufficient and less reliant on federal funding whenever possible.

Section 7. Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award

Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of

1980 to allow up to three Baldrige Quality Awards to be given per

subcategory in any given year as long as the third award results

in no additional cost to the Federal Government.

Committee Views

The Committee does not support granting three awards per subcategory per year on a regular basis. The Committee expects that

the granting of a third award will be the exception, not the rule.

Section 8. Next Generation Internet

Ensures that the Committee will have the opportunity to review

and authorize the Next Generation Internet (NGI), while at the

same time allowing for minimal on-going standards research work

on technologies associated with the next generation of the Internet.

Committee Views

The progression of our country’s computer networking technology

plays a vital role in our Nation’s continued leadership in scientific

research. The Committee, however, feels it necessary to develop

more of a record before addressing funding for NGI, and is working

with the Administration to develop a plan concerning NGI. The

Committee expects to hold hearings on NGI in the future to better

understand how it will further the goals of advancing network

technologies.
16

Section 9. Limitations

(a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities

Prohibits the use of funds authorized by this Act for any activity

whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the Congress. This section does not prevent employees of the departments

and agencies from communicating with Members of Congress to

conduct public business.

Committee Views

The Committee is committed to ensuring that awards for research and education are used solely for those purposes. Funds

should not be used for any purpose, other than that specified in the

award. The Committee, however, does not exclude appropriate communications between the Executive Branch and the Congress.

(b) Limitation on Appropriations

Disallows authorization of funds which are not specifically authorized to be appropriated by this Act for FY’s 1998 and 1999, or

by an Act of Congress in succeeding fiscal years.

Committee Views

This section emphasizes the Committee’s position that the only

funds authorized to be appropriated for NIST are made available

through this Act. It is the Committee’s position that authorizations

designating specific sums are required for appropriations of any

funds to be considered authorized. Organic act authority permits

agency missions and programmatic activity, but is not sufficient to

authorize actual funding.

(c) Eligibility for Awards

Requires the head of each federal agency for which funds are authorized under this act to exclude, for a period of 5 years, any person who received funds for a project not subject to competitive,

merit-based review process after FY 1997. This section is not applicable to the long-standing Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement programs nor awards to persons who are members of a

class specified by law for which assistance is awarded according to

formula provided by law.

Committee Views

The Committee has a long-standing position that awards should

be based on a competitive merit-based process. Merit reviews allow

taxpayers’ dollars to be spent in the most cost-effective manner.

Section 10. Notice

If any funds of this act, or amendments made by this act, are

subject to reprogramming which requires notice to be given to the

Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and

the Senate, notice of such action shall be concurrently provided to

this Committee and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation of the Senate.

If any program, project, or activity of NIST is preparing to undergo any major reorganization, the Secretary of Commerce shall no-
17

tify the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of

Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation and Appropriations of the Senate no later than 15

days prior to such reorganization.

Committee Views

The Committee believes that such notice must be given if it is

to carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Rules of the

House.

Section 11. Sense of the Congress on the Year 2000 Problem

It is the sense of Congress that NIST should give high priority

to correcting the year 2000 problem in all of its computer systems

to ensure effective operation in the year 2000 and beyond. NIST

needs to assess immediately the risk of the problem upon their systems and develop a plan and a budget to correct the problem for

its mission-critical programs. NIST also needs to begin consideration of contingency plans, in the event that certain systems are

unable to be corrected in time.

Committee Views

Despite knowing of the problem for years, the Federal Government has yet to adequately create strategies to address the year

2000 problem. The Committee believes Congress should continue to

take a leadership role in raising awareness about the issue with

both government and the private sector.

The potential impact on federal programs if the year 2000 problem is not corrected in an effective and timely manner is substantial and potentially serious. If federal computers are not prepared

to handle the change of date on January 1, 2000, there is a risk

to all government systems and the programs they support. It is imperative that such corrective action be taken to avert disruption to

critical Federal Government programs.

Section 12. Buy American

Requires any entity that is appropriated funds pursuant to this

act or amendments thereto, to comply with sections 2-4 of the Act

of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a–10c, popularly known as the ‘‘Buy

American Act’’). Requires that recipients of funds pursuant to this

act shall be notified of subsection (a)’s requirement of compliance

with the Buy American Act.

Committee Views

It is the view of this Committee that the Federal Government

should buy goods manufactured in the United States when feasible,

where cost-effective, and practicable.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE

Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report accompanying each bill or

joint resolution of a public character to contain: (1) an estimate,

made by such Committee, of the costs which would be incurred in

carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which

it is reported, and in each of the 5 fiscal years following such fiscal
18

year (or for the authorized duration of any program authorized by

such bill or joint resolution, if less than 5 years); (2) a comparison

of the estimate of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by such Committee with an estimate of such costs

made by any Government agency and submitted to such Committee; and (3) when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated

funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels under current law. However, clause 7(d) of that

rule provides that this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report and included in the report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule

XI. A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the

Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing

of this report and included in Section IX of this report pursuant to

clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI.

Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies a

measure providing new budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit authority, or

changes in revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate,

as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget

authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the

relevant program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 1274 does not contain any new budget authority,

credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated,

H.R. 1274 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which

is contained in Section IX of this report.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, April 18, 1997.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1274, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997.

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Rachel Forward and

Victoria Heid Hall (for federal costs), and Pepper Santalucia (for

the state and local impact).

Sincerely,

JAMES L. BLUM

(For June E. O’Neill, Director).

Enclosure.
19

H.R. 1274—National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997

Summary: H.R. 1274 would authorize appropriations for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 for various programs within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and for the office of the

Under Secretary for Technology in the Department of Commerce.

The bill also would make several amendments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act including one that would

allow NIST to assist certain regional centers for the transfer of

manufacturing technology for more than the six years currently

permitted.

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1274 would result in additional discretionary spending of about $1.2 billion over the 1998–2002 period.

The legislation would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1274 contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1274 is shown in the table on the following

page. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that all

amounts authorized will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal

year and that outlays will follow the historical spending patterns

for the affected programs.

Based on information from NIST, CBO estimates that the authorized amounts would be sufficient to cover the additional costs

of extending the amount of time that NIST could assist the regional centers for the transfer of manufacturing technology. CBO

estimates that the other provisions of the bill would have no significant budgetary impact.

By fiscal years in millions of dollars—

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:

Budget authority 1 ............................................................................. 582 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays ............................................................................. 636 396 226 93 3 3

Proposed Changes:

Authorization level ............................................................................ 0 610 627 0 0 0

Estimated outlays ............................................................................. 0 253 397 271 217 85

Spending Under H.R. 1274:

Authorization level 1 .......................................................................... 582 610 627 0 0 0

Estimated outlays ............................................................................. 363 649 623 364 220 88

1 The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and housing credit).

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: The

bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA,

but several sections of the bill would affect grant programs that

benefit site and local governments. The bill would authorize appropriations totaling about $229 million for fiscal years 1998 and 1999

for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program

jointly financed by the federal government and state or local agencies. The MEP is a program designed to enhance productivity and
20

technological performance in the United States, and is made up of

the State Technology Extension Program (STEP) and the Manufacturing Extension Centers Program (MECP). The STEP program

provides technical assistance and planning grants to states to develop or revitalize their technology programs. The MECP program

involves cooperative agreements between the federal government

and nonprofit institutions that are often funded by state or local

development agencies or universities.

The bill would also extend the length of time that the extension

centers are eligible to receive federal funding. Under current law,

cooperative agreements last as long as six years. Such agreements

provide up to 50 percent funding for the centers in the first three

years and a declining percentage in subsequent years. The bill

would allow a center to continue receiving federal funding after the

sixth year as long as it passed periodic reviews.

Two provisions in the bill would affect eligibility for federal

grants. The first would require compliance with the ‘‘Buy American

Act.’’ The second would exclude grantees from consideration for

awards if they had received funds under any other federal grant

program that was not subject to a competitive, merit-based award

process. The latter provision could change the allocation of funds

among grant recipients, including state universities and colleges.

CBO cannot predict how the share of research funding awarded to

public universities and colleges would change because of this provision.

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would impose no

new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: Rachel Forward and Victoria Heid Hall (266–2860). Impact on State, Local, Tribal Government: Pepper Santalucia (225–3220).

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 1274 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to include oversight

findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1)

of rule X. The Committee has no oversight findings.

XII. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to contain a summary

of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the House

Government Reform and Oversight Committee pursuant to clause

4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings and recommendations

have been submitted to the Committee in a timely fashion. The

Committee on Science has received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight.
21

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each report of a Committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include a statement citing the specific

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the

law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. Article I, section 8 of

the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1274.

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

This legislation does not establish or authorize the establishment

of a new advisory committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 1274 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).

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

In compliance with clause 3 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, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND

TECHNOLOGY ACT

REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 25. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(c)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5) Each Center which receives financial assistance under this

section shall be evaluated during its third year of operation by an

evaluation panel appointed by the Secretary. Each such evaluation

panel shall be composed of private experts, none of whom shall be

connected with the involved Center, and Federal officials. An official of the Institute shall chair the panel. Each evaluation panel

shall measure the involved Center’s performance against the objectives specified in this section. The Secretary shall not provide funding for the fourth through the sixth years of such Center’s operation unless the evaluation is positive. If the evaluation is positive,

the Secretary may provide continued funding through the sixth

year at declining levelsø, which are designed to ensure that the

Center no longer needs financial support from the Institute by the

seventh year. In no event shall funding for a Center be provided

by the Department of Commerce after the sixth year of the operation of a Center.¿. After the sixth year, a Center may receive addi-
22

tional financial support under this section if it has received a positive evaluation through an independent review, under procedures established by the Institute. Such an independent review shall be required at least every two years after the sixth year of operation.

Funding received for a fiscal year under this section after the sixth

year of operation shall not exceed the proportion of the capital and

annual operating and maintenance costs of the Center received by

the Center during its sixth year of operation.

* * * * * * *

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

SEC. 28. (a)***

(b) Under the Program established in subsection (a), and consistent with the mission and policies of the Institute, the Secretary,

acting through the Director, and subject to subsections (c) and (d),

may—

(1) aid industry-led United States joint research and development ventures (hereafter in this section referred to as ‘‘joint

ventures’’) (which may also include universities and independent research organizations), including those involving collaborative technology demonstration projects which develop and

test prototype equipment and processes, through—

(A) provision of organizational and technical advice; and

(B) participation in such joint ventures by means of

grants, cooperative agreements, øor contracts¿ contracts,

and, subject to the last sentence of this subsection, other

transactions, if the Secretary, acting through the Director,

determines participation to be appropriate, and if the nonFederal participants in the joint venture agree to pay at

least 60 percent of the total costs of the joint venture during

the Federal participation period under this section, which

shall not exceed 5 years, which may include (i) partial

start-up funding, ø(ii) provision of a minority share of the

cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years, and (iii)¿ and

(ii) making available equipment, facilities, and personnel,

provided that emphasis is placed on areas where the Institute

has scientific or technological expertise, on solving generic

problems of specific industries, and on making those industries

more competitive in world markets;

(2) provide grants to and enter into contracts øand cooperative agreements¿, cooperative agreements, and, subject to the

last sentence of this subsection, other transactions with United

States businesses (especially small businesses)ø, provided that

emphasis is¿ on the condition that grant recipients (other than

small businesses within the meaning of the Small Business Act)

provide at least 60 percent of the costs of the project, with emphasis placed on applying the Institute’s research, research

techniques, and expertise to those organizations’ research programs;

(3) involve the Federal laboratories in the Program, where

appropriate, using among other authorities the cooperative research and development agreements provided for under section
23

12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980;

and

(4) carry out, in a manner consistent with the provisions of

this section, such other cooperative research activities with

joint ventures as may be authorized by law or assigned to the

Program by the Secretary.

The authority under paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) to enter

into other transactions shall apply only if the Secretary, acting

through the Director, determines that standard contracts, grants, or

cooperative agreements are not feasible or appropriate, and only

when other transaction instruments incorporate terms and conditions that reflect the use of generally accepted commercial accounting and auditing practices.

* * * * * * *

(d) When entering into contracts or making awards under subsection (b), the following shall apply:

(1) No contract or award may be made until the research

project in question has been subject to a merit review, and has,

in the opinion of the reviewers appointed by the Director and

the Secretary, acting through the Director, been shown to have

scientific and technical merit and be of a nature and scope that

would not be pursued in a timely manner without Federal assistance.

* * * * * * *

(11)(A) Title to any intellectual property arising from assistance provided under this section shall vest in a company or

companies incorporated in the United Statesø.¿ or any other

participant in a joint venture receiving financial assistance

under this section, as agreed by the parties, notwithstanding

the requirements of section 202(a) and (b) of title 35, United

States Code. The United States may reserve a nonexclusive,

nontransferable, irrevocable paid-up license, to have practiced

for or on behalf of the United States, in connection with any

such intellectual property, but shall not, in the exercise of such

license, publicly disclose proprietary information related to the

license. Title to any such intellectual property shall not be

transferred or passed, except to a company incorporated in the

United States, until the expiration of the first patent obtained

in connection with such intellectual property.

* * * * * * *

(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B) and subsection (d)(3), the

Director may grant extensions beyond the deadlines established

under those provisions for joint venture and single applicant awardees to expend Federal funds to complete their projects, if such extension may be granted with no additional cost to the Federal Government and it is in the Federal Government’s interest to do so.

(l) The Secretary, acting through the Director, may vest title to

tangible personal property in any recipient of financial assistance

under this section if—

(1) the property is purchased with funds provided under this

section; and
24

(2) the Secretary, acting through the Director, determines that

the vesting of such property furthers the objectives of the Institute.

Vesting under this subsection shall be subject to such limitations as

are prescribed by the Secretary, acting through the Director, and

shall be made without further obligation to the United States Government.

SECTION 17 OF THE STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY

INNOVATION ACT OF 1980

SEC. 17. MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CATEGORIES IN WHICH AWARD MAY BE GIVEN.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) Not more than two awards may be made within any subcategory in any year, unless the Secretary determines that a third

award is merited and can be given at no additional cost to the Federal Government (and no award shall be made within any category

or subcategory if there are no qualifying enterprises in that category or subcategory).

* * * * * * *

XVII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 16, 1997, a quorum being present, the Committee favorably reported H.R. 1274, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology Authorization Act of 1997 by a voice vote, and recommends its enactment.
(25)

XVIII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS BY HON. TOM COBURN

As a scientist trained as a physician, I recognize the importance

of scientific and mathematical advancement. However, during this

time of financial uncertainty, I cannot support the proposed budgetary increase for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Authorization Act of 1997.

I am pleased that the Committee chose not to fund two new initiatives requested by the Administration for The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) and other foreign policy initiatives through economic development. I am also encouraged that the NIST budget was not funded at the Administration’s request.

However, during this time of financial uncertainty, I cannot support the proposed budgetary increase, regardless of how insignificant it might seem. During hearings and subsequent markups, the

Committee has learned that the initiatives such as the Advanced

Technology Program have millions of dollars in unobligated funds.

Furthermore, research and development thrives in the private

sector, where competition fuels ingenuity, drives technology, improves efficiency, and stimulates the economy. Acknowledging this,

I do not believe the NIST truly needs an increase of more than $46

million over the next two years.

TOM A. COBURN.
(26)

XIX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

We were heartened that H.R. 1274 as introduced did contain

two-year authorizations for both the Advanced Technology Program

(ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). However, we were gravely concerned over the funding levels for ATP

and its future viability at these levels. The FY98 authorization

level in H.R. 1274 would allow for $66 million in new awards, but

the FY99 funding level of $150 million would not even allow the

program to meet its existing obligations.

The Nation needs—and can have—a multi-faceted, bipartisan

policy to promote innovation, and the ATP should be an integral

element of that policy. With declining defense budgets, neither a

captive defense industry for the military nor reliance on spin-offs

for the commercial economy represents a credible path to technological innovation. The ATP catalyzes the best efforts of industry,

universities and government to promote innovation in this changed

environment. It can contribute to a strong and growing economy by

fostering enabling technologies that will lead to new, innovative

products, services, and industrial processes. And, unlike most government programs, research priorities for the ATP are largely set

by industry.

The ATP works by encouraging a necessary change in how industry approaches R&D. It is widely documented that the globalization

of markets, the rapid pace of technology, and the pressures of the

bottom line are combining to drive private-sector R&D to an increasingly narrow, short-term focus. As the GAO found in their recent report Measuring Performance: Strength and Limitations of

Research Indicators: ‘‘Companies told GAO that they are focusing

more of the spending on short-term R&D projects.’’ There is a

growing gap in U.S. industry between basic research and product

development, which is just the gap that the ATP was designed to

fill. The nature of ATP projects, risky but broadly applicable, stimulates joint research ventures that link small suppliers with users,

or that link several firms and universities together to solve a generic problem common to all.

We supported an amendment offered by Rep. Stabenow (D–MI) that would have provided $225 million in FY98 funding, a freeze

from the FY97 level. The Stabenow amendment was silent on FY99

funding for ATP, pending the completion of Secretary Daley’s review of the program. We felt that this approach was eminently reasonable. It sold have introduced an element of stability and consistency into the program, factors which have been noticeably lacking

in the politicized environment of recent years. We understand

Chairman Sensenbrenner’s concern over un-obligated balances in

the program, but would note that much of this problem is attributable to Congressional actions. In recent year, Congress has

threatened to terminate the program, has rescinded funds, and has
27

directed the ATP not to make new awards with current funds. In

short, it has provided neither a stable funding profile nor a supportive environment for the program.

The Stabenow amendment was a common-sense approach that

aimed to take politics out of the ATP. We believe it to be the best

approach and will continue to support efforts to maintain current

ATP funding levels.

GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr.

BART GORDON.

JAMES A. TRAFICANT.

TIM ROEMER.

BUD CRAMER.

JIM BARCIA.

PAUL MCHALE.

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON.

ALCEE L. HASTINGS.

LYNN N. RIVERS.

ZOE LOFGREN.

MIKE DOYLE.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE.

BILL LUTHER.

WALTER CAPPS.

DEBBIE STABENOW.

BOB ETHERIDGE.

NICK LAMPSON.

DARLENE HOOLEY.
28