Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
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
  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.

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 assistance 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 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 component 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]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal years--                         
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
              Technology Admin.                                                                         Percent 
                                                    1997        1998    1999    2000    2001    2002     change 
                                               (appropriated)                                          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 outside 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. 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 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.
    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.
            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                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Administration                  Change FY 
                        Program                         Appropriated      FY 1998     H.R. 1274 FY   1998 vs. FY
                                                           FY 1997        request         1998          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                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Change FY 
            Program             H.R. 1274 FY  H.R. 1274 FY   1999 vs. FY
                                    1998          1999          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
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.

        (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'';
          (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 
long-term, 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.
    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 
33\1/3\%.
            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 33\1/3\% 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.

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 notify 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 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.

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 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.

                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 levels[, 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 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.
          * * * * * * *

                      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, [or 
                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 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, which may include (i) partial 
                start-up funding, [(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 [and 
        cooperative agreements], cooperative agreements, and, 
        subject to the last sentence of this subsection, other 
        transactions with United States businesses (especially 
        small businesses)[, 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 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 
        States[.] 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
          (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.
               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.
                         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 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.