Congress maintains a strong interest in the health of U.S. manufacturing due to its central role in the economy and national defense. Manufacturing accounts for about 12% of the nation's gross domestic product (G DP). Manufacturing enterprises directly employ approximately 12 million U.S. workers and indirectly support millions of additional jobs in other industries. Manufacturers also fund about two-thirds of the nation's industrial research and development (R&D), providing a foundation for technological innovation and continued U.S. technological leadership. Total average compensation (wages and benefits) for manufacturing workers ($81,347) exceeds total average compensation for all workers ($71,161). With respect to national defense, the United States depends heavily on its manufacturing base to produce military weapons, aircraft, ground vehicles, ships, and other equipment. Analysts hold divergent views of the health of U.S. manufacturing. Some see the sector as vibrant and healthy. Those holding this view tend to point to, among other things, the sector's strong growth in output and productivity, as well as the United States' world-leading share of global manufacturing output. From its low point in March 2010, U.S. manufacturing employment has grown by 885,000 (7.7%) to a recent high of 12.338 million in January 2016 (though it subsequently experienced a drop of 73,000 jobs through October 2016). Other analysts, however, believe that the U.S. manufacturing sector is at risk. Those holding this view express concerns about a "hollowing-out" of U.S. manufacturing resulting from the decision of many U.S. manufacturers to move production activities offshore; policy and program efforts of other nations to attract and grow manufacturing companies; and a decades-long trend in declining U.S. manufacturing employment. The 2007-2009 recession and the relatively slow subsequent pace of recovery contributed to increased concerns about the health of U.S. manufacturing. Some stakeholders and policymakers advocate for changes to improve the business environment, including reducing tax and regulatory burdens on manufacturers and reforming the nation's tort laws. Other stakeholders and policymakers support more direct and focused efforts funded by the federal government, such as those that aim to help a particular technology or industry. In particular, President Obama has undertaken and proposed the creation and funding of a variety of initiatives (e.g., the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, the National Robotics Initiative, and the Materials Genome Initiative) to help address concerns about U.S. manufacturing. One of the President's key proposals to help U.S. manufacturers is the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). The NNMI is the main focus of this report. The report begins with a discussion of the NNMI proposal and subsequent legislative action. It reviews related institutes established during the legislative debate. It then addresses several broad policy and implementation issues that continue to face Congress, including the availability of funding, the proper role of the federal government, and oversight of NNMI implementation. In February 2012, in his FY2013 budget, President Obama proposed the establishment of the NNMI, requesting $1 billion in mandatory funding to support the establishment of up to 15 institutes. He formally introduced the concept in a speech at a manufacturing facility in Virginia on March 9, 2012. During 2012, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) sought nationwide input from industry, academia, state and local governments, economic development authorities, industry associations and consortia, private citizens, and other interested parties to help guide the design of the NNMI. The AMNPO held four regional workshops and published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register inviting public comment on the proposed NNMI program. The AMNPO used the input gathered from the workshops and the RFI in the preparation of a January 2013 National Science and Technology Council report, National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design . No legislation to enact the President's proposal was introduced in the 112 th Congress. In 2013, the President renewed his call for an NNMI in his FY2014 budget request, again seeking $1 billion in mandatory funding. In August 2013, bills titled the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act were introduced in the House ( H.R. 2996 ) and the Senate ( S. 1468 ) to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation. H.R. 2996 passed the House in September 2014. S. 1468 was reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in August 2014. No further legislative action was taken. The President's FY2015 budget proposal once again sought authority and funding to establish the NNMI. The request was not part of the President's FY2015 base budget request, but rather a part of his adjunct $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI) proposal. The OGSI included $2.4 billion in discretionary funding to establish up to 45 NNMI institutes. No legislative action was taken on this OGSI proposal. In December 2014, nearly three years after President Obama first proposed the establishment of the NNMI, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI Act), as Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ). President Obama signed the bill into law on December 16, 2014. The RAMI Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI) program within the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The provisions of the RAMI Act are discussed throughout this report and detailed in Appendix , "NNMI Provisions of the RAMI Act." In Setpember 2016, the Department of Commerce (DOC) rebranded the program "Manufacturing USA." Prior to passage of the RAMI Act, the Obama Administration relied on regular appropriations and the existing statutory authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) to establish seven NNMI-like institutes. Five of these institutes were competed and awarded by DOD: National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (America Makes), Youngstown, OH Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute, DMDII), Chicago, IL Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Lightweight Innovations For Tomorrow, LIFT), Detroit, MI Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation (American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics, AIM Photonics), Rochester, NY Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NextFlex), San Jose, CA Two IMIs were competed and awarded by DOE: Next Generation Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute (PowerAmerica), Raleigh, NC Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation, IACMI), Knoxville, TN The RAMI Act allows certain existing manufacturing institutes to be classified as an IMI for participation in the network. In particular, the act incorporates the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute and other manufacturing centers formally recognized as [IMIs] 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. However, the RAMI Act prohibits such institutes from receiving any financial assistance authorized by the act. Since passage of the RAMI Act, seven additional IMIs have been awarded. Three of these have been awarded by DOD: Revolutionary Fibers and Textiles Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Advanced Functional Fabrics of America, AFFOA), Cambridge, MA; Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute, ARMI), Manchester, NH; and Advanced Robotics Manufacturing Institute (Advanced Robotics Manufacturing (ARM) Institute), Pittsburgh, PA . Three IMIs were competed and awarded by DOE: Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Smart Manufacturing: Advanced Sensors, Controls, Platforms, and Modeling for Manufacturing (SMART Manufacturing Innovation Institute), Los Angeles, CA; Modular Chemical Process Intensification Institute (Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment (RAPID) Institute), New York, NY; and Reducing Embodied Energy and Emissions of Manufactured Materials (Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) Institute), Rochester, NY. One IMI was competed and awarded by DOC: National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), Newark, DE. In December 2015, Congress appropriated specific funding, for the first time, for the establishment and coordination of IMIs under the provisions of the RAMI Act. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provided NIST with $25.0 million for FY2016 for the NNMI, to include funding for establishment of IMIs and up to $5.0 million for coordination activities. The explanatory statement accompanying the act directed NIST to follow the direction of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 in requiring open competition to select the technological focus areas of industry-driven manufacturing institutes. NIST held an open competition in 2016. NIST stated that it intended to establish two institutes, providing up to a total of $70 million per institute over five to seven years, with federal funding matched by private and other nonfederal sources. As identified above, NIST has selected only one IMI. Anticipating the possibility that agencies might establish IMI-type organizations outside the parameters of the RAMI Act, the act provides for the potential subsequent incorporation into the NNMI network. While the RAMI Act established the NNMI program, set forth its purposes, and authorized its structure, funding, and operation, a number of options remain for Congress to consider as the program is implemented.