[Pages H4452-H4461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND MANUFACTURING STIMULATION ACT OF 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 350 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1868.

{time} 1348

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1868) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Snyder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Ehlers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1868, the
Technology Innovation Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This bill
authorizes programs at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or NIST, for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, and
strengthens American innovation.
For most Americans, NIST is not a household word. But since its
creation more than 100 years ago, NIST has made major contributions to
public safety, industrial competitiveness and economic growth.
Beginning in the 1900s, when it set standards for fire hydrants that
have saved countless lives, to the 1950s, when it developed the world's
fastest computer, helping usher in the information age, to its
groundbreaking work on the technical aspects of the collapse of the
World Trade Center on 9/11, NIST has served the public interest in ways
that far exceed its public fame.
Today, NIST's mission focuses on promoting innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement, science, standards and
technology. This mission has never been more urgent. The recent
National Academy of Sciences report coauthored by Norm Augustine,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' warns that we face major
challenges in the global marketplace and recommends that we ``ensure
that the United States is the premier place in the world in which to
innovate.''
H.R. 1868 helps implement that recommendation by putting the NIST
budget on a 10-year path to doubling as an investment in the future of
American innovation. The bill increases the NIST research budget, funds
key areas such as biologics, health care IT and nanotechnology. It
funds the construction of a high performance laboratory at the Boulder,
Colorado, campus, and upgrades the Center for Neutron Research in
Gaithersburg, Maryland. This enables world class engineers and their
scientists to have world class facilities for their work.
H.R. 1868 also addresses problems in the American manufacturing
center, which has lost almost 3 million jobs since 2001. It expands the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, a proven and highly
successful public-private partnership that provides technical
assistance to small and medium-size manufacturers to improve
productivity and to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
It also establishes a competitive and collaborative grant system for
MEP

[[Page H4453]]

centers, industry groups, and nonindustry partners, to undertake
manufacturing technology research. Manufacturing is a major source of
high skill, high-paying jobs, and this bill will go far to reinvigorate
our manufacturing sector.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to innovation is the technology
so-called ``Valley of Death,'' the gap between angel funding and
measurable venture capital, the lack of adequate private venture
capital for early stage, high-risk, high-reward technology development.
Almost 20 years ago, Congress created the Advance Technology Program,
or ATP, to address this gap.
Today, the ``Valley of Death'' remains, but the global innovative
environment has changed. H.R. 1868 responds to this by replacing ATP
with the Technology Innovation Program, or TIP, which would provide
limited, cost-shared grants to small and medium-size firms and joint
venture to pursue high risk, high-reward technologies, with potential
for broad public benefit.
TIP also acknowledges the vital role that universities play in the
innovation cycle by allowing them to fully participate in TIP. H.R.
1868 is a bipartisan bill and incorporates good ideas from both sides
of the aisle. It has been endorsed by TechNet, SEMI, the American Small
Manufacturers Coalition, the Association of American Universities, the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the
Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America, whose members
include the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business
Software Alliance and the American Chemical Society. It also enjoys the
support of dozens of other organizations, companies, and individuals.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation
Manufacturing and Stimulation Act of 2007.
I certainly want to thank the Chair of the subcommittee for working
very, very closely with us in producing this fine bill.
This bill provides a 3-year authorization for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, familiarly called NIST. Since 1901, NIST
scientists and engineers have worked directly with American industries
to address their needs for measurement methods, tools, data and
technology, the building blocks that allow industry to grow and
prosper.
NIST is one of three agencies targeted by the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double the Federal
investment in physical science and research over the next 10 years to
ensure that America remains technologically competitive in the global
context marketplace. Yesterday this body passed an authorization bill
for one of the other ACI agencies, the National Science Foundation. I
am very pleased that today we are supporting a second ACI agency by
authorizing NIST labs at a rate that would double the budget over the
next 10 years.
H.R. 1868 is a bipartisan bill that incorporates recommendations from
the administration for some of NIST's programs. However, earlier this
week, the administration sent up a critical statement about H.R. 1868,
and I want to clarify some misunderstanding that may have arisen from
that statement.
H.R. 1868 does not underfund the NIST labs, contrary to the statement
and the administration's comments. H.R. 1868 provides a 10 percent
increase above fiscal year 2007 for the NIST labs and sets the NIST lab
budget on a path to double over the next 10 years. This is entirely
consistent with the President's overall stated goal for the American
Competitiveness Initiative.
H.R. 1868 does not fund or subsidize management consulting services.
H.R. 1868 fully funds the highly successful manufacturing extension
partnership, better known as the MEP program.
MEP helps businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste
and train workers to use new equipment, which keeps high-paying
manufacturing jobs here in the United States. This House has already
twice passed this MEP authorization in both the 108th and 109th
Congress.
Another comment, MEP receives one-third of its funding from the
Federal Government, one-third from the States, one-third from fees
charged to participating small manufacturers. MEP has over 350
manufacturing extension offices located in all 50 States and Puerto
Rico.
H.R. 1868 creates the Technology Innovation Program based on
recommendations from the administration. This bill is very clear that
only small and medium-size companies can apply for Federal funding.
Universities partnering with this small company can apply for
funding, actually expanding the role of university participation, not
limiting it as the administration's letter suggests.
The program's sole goal is to accelerate the development and
application of challenging high-risk, high-reward technologies in areas
of critical national needs, thus, targeting major societal needs that
the administration's letter asserts are not part of the bill.
H.R. 1868 authorizes an important investment in our Nation's future
economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Gordon
and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Wu for working with
us on this important piece of legislation.
I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman from
Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) to improve this legislation.
I also want to make an additional point. At times, some have
considered this as being improper legislation. In particular, the
President's statement indicates that is the beginning of an industrial
policy.
That is simply not true. For those who are critical of this
particular proposal, I want to ask them, first of all, do they oppose
the current agricultural extension program, which has been in effect
for nearly a century, which has been of inestimable value to our
farming communities and to our farmers.
No one would think of ending the cooperative extension service in the
agriculture department. It has been extremely valuable to this country.
I have been in this body for 14 years. I have never heard anyone offer
an amendment to defund the cooperative extension program, even though
it costs $400 million a year and benefits less than 2 percent of the
workforce in this country.
At the same time, I have met a number of people, and apparently
including some in the administration, who want to kill the MEP program,
which is only $100 million a year and benefits industries that employ
14 percent of the workers in this Nation.

{time} 1400

Now, how can it make sense to want to keep a $400 million program
that maintains a workforce of less than 2 million, and kill a program
that costs one-fourth as much and helps about eight times as many
workers? It doesn't make sense. So that argument is simply out the
window.
If we do like the Cooperative Extension Service, we should approve
the manufacturing extension partnership, which is of exactly the same
nature and is designed to help small- to medium-sized manufacturers
develop more jobs in our economy.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for
his hard work on this legislation. I would further like to thank the
gentleman for responding to the factually erroneous statements in the
statement of administrative position, and I deeply appreciate the
correction for the record.
Madam Chair, I recognize my good friend from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1868, the
Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, and I
wish to congratulate the sponsor of this fine legislation, the chairman
of Subcommittee on Technology Innovation, Congressman David Wu, and his
ranking member, who understandably is not here today, Mr. Gingrey.
I especially am supportive of the provisions of the bill that
reauthorize and strengthen the Manufacturing Extension Program. This is
very critical. I hope people were listening to Mr. Ehlers, who very
cogently spoke and defined what this legislation is all about.

[[Page H4454]]

Madam Chair, I represent a district with a long and proud history of
manufacturing that goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and the
birth of the American industry in Paterson, New Jersey. Sadly, we have
seen the steady decline of our manufacturing base in America as the
state of our competitiveness has fallen behind foreign nations.
The MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension Program, is one of the
most successful programs funded by the Federal Government today, and it
has provided hope to our Nation's manufacturers. It is a nationwide
network of not-for-profit centers in nearly 350 locations, serving all
50 States and Puerto Rico, whose sole purpose is to provide small- and
medium-sized manufacturers with the services they need for success.
The president of the New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program, Bob
Loderstedt, captures this program best when he said, ``We have a public
sector mission accomplished with a private sector mind-set.''
I am proud to say that this legislation today will increase funding
by 8 percent per year and double the funding over 10 years, so that
more small manufacturers will be able to better compete in the global
marketplace.
The MEP is certainly no Federal handout. Indeed, it is a public-
private partnership for strong manufacturing growth, and these
statistics bear this out: In fiscal year 2004 alone, MEP activities
directly resulted in almost $2 billion in new sales and more than
12,000 jobs. MEP's ability to analyze the weaknesses of each
manufacturer resulted in $721 million in cost savings. It also led to
$941 million worth of investment and modernization to meet the future
needs of manufacturers.
I have seen firsthand the benefits of the New Jersey MEP as provided
for manufacturers, and similar throughout the entire Nation. I believe
that this is a very wise investment for us, and we can secure our
Nation's manufacturing base. I urge my colleagues from both sides of
the aisle to vote in favor of this vital legislation.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, let me say this. I think this is the
beginning of finally having a manufacturing policy in this country.
That is why we have seen the demise of manufacturing. Alexander
Hamilton was right, we have a multifaceted economy; and we must
understand, that won the battle and the debate with Thomas Jefferson.
We cannot be one economy here. This is a multifaceted economy, and this
is good for manufacturing, this is good for America, this is good for
our small businesses.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, my thanks to my friend, Mr.
Wu, for leading this debate today. I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act.
The time has come for our country as a whole to stop ceding progress
in science and technology to our competitors overseas. As one of the
younger Members of this Chamber, I know that it is this generation's
responsibility to keep our country competitive with countries like
Japan, China, and India, whose young scientists and engineers are
making new technological discoveries every day.
H.R. 1868 is part of the Speaker's Innovation Agenda to address how
the United States should create a new generation of innovative thinkers
and an educated, skilled workforce in science, math, engineering, and
information technology. This bill makes a sustained commitment to
Federal research and development, and will promote private sector
innovation and provide small businesses with the tools to encourage
entrepreneurial innovation and job creation throughout the country.
The Innovation Agenda is of particular importance to me as the
Representative to Connecticut's Fifth District. We used to be the
vanguard of manufacturing in the Fifth District; it is the home of
Stanley Tool, of Scoville Brass, Torrington Ball Bearing Company, the
fashioner of ball bearings where my grandfather and great-grandfather
worked.
The days of those large manufacturing plants, at least in the Fifth
Congressional District, are days of the past. However, my district now
stands at the precipice of a new manufacturing era.
As I travel around my district, I am struck by how many small, high-
tech manufacturers are setting up shop in this corner of the world. For
example, in Torrington, high-tech companies are sprouting up on the
grounds of the former Torrington Ball Bearing plant. In Danbury, in the
shadow of a deserted hat manufacturing plant, a company that
specializes in homeland security devices is growing. And in Waterbury,
at an old brass factory, Luvata is making wire for an international
consortium creating the world's first nuclear fusion device.
These small manufacturers are struggling every day with rising
electricity costs and a lack of qualified workers to fill their growing
job demands. This is why the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program, a national network of local centers that are set up to help
these small manufacturers, are so critical to my district and districts
like mine. This program is an effective public-private partnership that
helps to leverage State and Federal dollars into private investment
funds for these smaller manufacturers.
The importance of small manufacturers to America cannot be
overstated. It is these small manufacturing plants where the most
innovative work is being done. That is why I am so proud of where the
Fifth District stands as it is ready to lead in this new era.
Lastly, I just would like to voice my support for the Baldrige
National Quality Program, named for former Commerce Secretary Malcolm
Baldrige. The awards given by the President to businesses that live by
Mr. Baldrige's strong belief and quality of performance standards, his
widow, Midge Baldrige of Woodbury, Connecticut, and a friend. It is an
honor to represent her.
I thank the gentleman for the time, I thank his efforts on this
measure, and I urge passage this afternoon here in the House.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I reiterate my strong support of H.R. 1868, the
Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act.
This bill is a key part of the President's American competitive
initiative, and I am pleased it moved through the Science and
Technology Committee in a bipartisan manner, and also moved through
speedily.
I thank the staff for their hard work on this bill, including Jenny
Healy from Dr. Gingrey's office and Julia Jester from my office. I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I also urge support for H.R. 1868. As I am
frequently fond of saying, if you don't set standards for things,
things don't match up. If you can't measure things, it is not real from
a technologic or economic perspective.
The underlying legislation is crucial to America's competitiveness
and our place in the world market.
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, I would like to compliment my friend,
Chairman Wu. He has been a tireless advocate for America's
manufacturers and businesses and this bill will be a great benefit to
our Nation's workforce. I appreciate working with the Chairman to
include language in H.R. 1868 for a pilot program that, among other
things, better enables the transfer of technology based on the
technological needs of manufacturers and available technologies from
institutions of higher education, laboratories, and other technology
producing entities.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Competitive Grant Program
described in Section 203(c) of H.R. 1868 is intended to, in addition to
traditional manufacturing extension activities, emphasize the need to
develop MEP projects that define the technological needs of small-to-
medium sized manufacturers and to similarly define the capabilities of
new technology and innovations available from institutions of higher
education, laboratories, and other technology producing entities. When
properly defined and characterized, manufacturers and innovators will
have the ability, through computer technology or other means, to match
needs with capabilities. I believe that the development and deployment
of this matching capability by this Competitive Grant Program will
permit access to new and maturing technologies for the 350,000 small-
to-medium-sized manufacturers on a broad basis, which has not been
possible to date.

[[Page H4455]]

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I am aware of Representative Matheson's
concerns about technology infusion to small manufacturers. There is
study by the National Academy of Public Administration that established
the critical need for small manufacturers to have better access to
changing technology, production techniques, and business management
practices. This study also recommended the improving technology
transfer and infusion to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The
Committee supports the rapid integration of new technologies and
innovations into the manufacturing industry. This integration will help
small-to-medium sized manufacturers stay competitive in the global
economy while promoting American innovation and preserving American
jobs. Language in the bill will facilitate these goals.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1868,
The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007.
H.R. 1868 authorizes appropriations for scientific and technical
research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, strengthens and improves the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) initiative, and establishes
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) to assist U.S. businesses and
institutions of higher education to accelerate development and
application of challenging, high-risk technologies that promise
widespread economic benefits.
H.R. 1868 authorizes $365 million for MEP, a highly successful
program that helps small and medium domestic manufacturers compete more
effectively in the international marketplace. The goal of MEP is not
only to maintain current manufacturing jobs, but also to nurture growth
in the manufacturing sector to create additional jobs for American
workers. The bill provides for an 8 percent increase per year in MEP
appropriations, which would double program funding in 10 years.
The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007
also amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
establish an MEP board. The current national MEP board is established
by the Secretary of Commerce, and has been woefully neglected for 3
years, not meeting at all in 2005 and 2006. NIST recently reconstituted
the board, but most members are now from academia, not industry. H.R.
1868 would establish the MEP advisory board in statute, rather than at
the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, and would require majority
representation from industry.
My district and others across the country will benefit from funding
research at National Institutes of Standards and Technology,
strengthening the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and establishing
the Technology Innovation Program, and I am pleased to be able to
support it.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Technology
Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act, H.R. 1868. This important
legislation is part of an ambitious initiative that will fulfill the
Innovation Agenda.
I am proud of my efforts to help craft the Innovation Agenda, which
will help provide for future prosperity through wise investments. H.R.
1868 is an integral part of this effort and will help meet the Agenda's
call to double funding over the next 10 years for the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. NIST exists to
improve our Nation's economic security and quality of life through the
improvement of technology and related sciences and standards. This
legislation puts us well on the path to doubling our investment in NIST
by setting the appropriate authorization levels through 2010. This will
mean actual authorizations of $470.9 million in FY 2008 and $537.6
million in FY 2010. These increases are necessary investments in
revitalizing NIST's staffing, activity, and physical infrastructure,
particularly at a time when we face unprecedented levels of
international competition.
In this bill, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is created. TIP
gives businesses and universities grants that encourage high-risk
investments in technology, in cases where such investments have
potential widespread economic benefits. This is a sound use of taxpayer
money, as projected economic payoff to society is a necessary
precondition for issuance of a grant. This program helps to solve the
failure of market forces to encourage full investment in research and
development. This failure of market forces is rooted in the fact that
only one third of the financial reward of research and development
investment is felt by investors, with the rest being felt by society as
a whole.
H.R. 1868 also improves the competitiveness of the American
manufacturing industry by creating postdoctoral fellowships for related
research, and by creating a manufacturing research pilot grants program
for interdisciplinary collaborations between businesses, State
governments, nonprofits, and universities.
By strengthening our existing investment in our national technology
and manufacturing capacity and through the creation of new related
programs, this bill is a crucial element of the Innovation Agenda to
maintain American economic security and global leadership. I encourage
my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R.
1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of
2007.
I am a cosponsor of this important legislation, which reauthorizes
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST has not
been completely reauthorized since 1992, yet it is the lead federal
agency in much cutting-edge technology, such as semiconductor research
and nanotechnology.
NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key
laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The
Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and
engineering center for significant research across the nation.
A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding
for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have
contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50
years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors
such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality
of research performed at NIST. In Fiscal Year 2007, NIST-Boulder will
begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology
lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of
temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance
research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks
telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST
will need further funding in Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009.
H.R. 1868 authorizes this critical funding.
The legislation also includes a needed funding increase for overall
laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness
initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class
research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally
competitive in many industries.
I am also Pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and
gradually increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program. The MEP program has a network of centers across the
nation to help small and medium-sized manufacturers develop and
commercialize their research. Minimal Federal investment has yielded
substantial benefits to manufacturers across the country.
In Colorado, the Colorado Association for Manufacturing and
Technology (CAMT) hosts the Colorado MEP (CMEP) program and has helped
Colorado's more than 6,000 manufacturers save millions of dollars. Over
the last 6 years, CMEP has decreased costs for Colorado manufacturers
by almost $17 million and increased sales by more than $4 million--so I
believe that this is a program that we must continue to support.
This legislation also replaces the Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
with the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). The ATP has been a
valuable resource to small manufacturers by funding technology
development. The TIP will build upon and improve this program to help
small U.S. manufacturers remain competitive in the increasingly
competitive global market.
I would like to thank Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman
Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey, as well as Science and Technology
Chairman Gordon, for introducing this critical legislation and working
to bring it to the floor today.
In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Tauscher). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 1868

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Technology
Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Scientific and technical research and services.
Sec. 102. Industrial technology services.

TITLE II--INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY REFORMS

Sec. 201. Institute-wide planning report.

[[Page H4456]]

Sec. 202. Report by Visiting Committee.
Sec. 203. Manufacturing extension partnership.
Sec. 204. Technology Innovation Program.
Sec. 205. Research fellowships.
Sec. 206. Collaborative manufacturing research pilot grants.
Sec. 207. Manufacturing fellowship program.
Sec. 208. Meetings of Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Post-doctoral fellows.
Sec. 302. Financial agreements clarification.
Sec. 303. Working capital fund transfers.
Sec. 304. Retention of depreciation surcharge.
Sec. 305. Non-Energy Inventions Program.
Sec. 306. Redefinition of the metric system.
Sec. 307. Repeal of redundant and obsolete authority.
Sec. 308. Clarification of standard time and time zones.
Sec. 309. Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.
Sec. 310. Malcolm Baldrige awards.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101. 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) $470,879,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $497,750,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(3) $537,569,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
(1) $7,860,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $8,096,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(3) $8,339,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(c) Construction and Maintenance.--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--
(1) $93,865,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $86,371,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(3) $49,719,000 for fiscal year 2010.

SEC. 102. INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for Industrial Technology Services activities of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $222,968,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which--
(A) $110,000,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation
Program under section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at
least $45,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
(B) $112,968,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l), of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be for the
competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act;
(2) $263,505,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which--
(A) $141,500,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation
Program under section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at
least $45,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
(B) $122,005,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program under sections 25 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l), of which not more than $4,000,000 shall be for the
competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act;
and
(3) $282,266,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which--
(A) $150,500,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation
Program under section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at
least $45,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
(B) $131,766,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program under sections 25 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l), of which not more than $4,000,000 shall be for the
competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act.

TITLE II--INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY REFORMS

SEC. 201. INSTITUTE-WIDE PLANNING REPORT.

Section 23 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278i) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsections:
``(c) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the
President's annual budget request in the first year after the
date of enactment of the Technology Innovation and
Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, the Director shall
transmit to the Congress a 3-year programmatic planning
document for the Institute, including programs under the
Scientific and Technical Research and Services, Industrial
Technology Services, and Construction of Research Facilities
functions.
``(d) Concurrent with the submission to the Congress of the
President's annual budget request in each year after the date
of enactment of the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing
Stimulation Act of 2007, the Director shall transmit to the
Congress an update to the 3-year programmatic planning
document transmitted under subsection (c), revised to cover
the first 3 fiscal years after the date of that update.''.

SEC. 202. REPORT BY VISITING COMMITTEE.

Section 10(h)(1) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``on or before January 31 in each year''
and inserting ``within 30 days after the submission to
Congress of the President's annual budget request in each
year''; and
(2) by adding to the end the following: ``Such report also
shall comment on the programmatic planning document and
updates thereto transmitted to the Congress by the Director
under section 23(c) and (d).''.

SEC. 203. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.

(a) MEP Advisory Board.--Section 25 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) MEP Advisory Board.--(1) There is established within
the Institute a Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory
Board (in this Act referred to as the `MEP Advisory Board').
The MEP Advisory Board shall consist of 10 members broadly
representative of stakeholders, to be appointed by the
Director. At least 2 members shall be employed by or on an
advisory board for the Centers, and at least 5 other members
shall be from United States small businesses in the
manufacturing sector. No member shall be an employee of the
Federal Government.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), the
term of office of each member of the MEP Advisory Board shall
be 3 years.
``(B) The original members of the MEP Advisory Board shall
be appointed to 3 classes. One class of 3 members shall have
an initial term of 1 year, one class of 3 members shall have
an initial term of 2 years, and one class of 4 members shall
have an initial term of 3 years.
``(C) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor
was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such
term.
``(D) Any person who has completed two consecutive full
terms of service on the MEP Advisory Board shall thereafter
be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period
following the expiration of the second such term.
``(3) The MEP Advisory Board shall meet no less than 2
times annually, and provide to the Director--
``(A) advice on Manufacturing Extension Partnership
programs, plans, and policies;
``(B) assessments of the soundness of Manufacturing
Extension Partnership plans and strategies; and
``(C) assessments of current performance against
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program plans.
``(4) In discharging its duties under this subsection, the
MEP Advisory Board shall function solely in an advisory
capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
``(5) The MEP Advisory Board shall transmit an annual
report to the Secretary for transmittal to the Congress
within 30 days after the submission to the Congress of the
President's annual budget request in each year. Such report
shall address the status of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program and comment on the relevant sections of
the programmatic planning document and updates thereto
transmitted to the Congress by the Director under section
23(c) and (d).''.
(b) Acceptance of Funds.--Section 25(d) of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d))
is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may
be appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the
Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept
funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under
section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of
strengthening United States manufacturing. Such funds, if
allocated to a Center or Centers, shall not be considered in
the calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual
operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).''.
(c) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant
Program.--Section 25 of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k), as amended by subsection
(a) of this section, is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(f) Competitive Grant Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this
section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive
awards among participants described in paragraph (2) for the
purposes described in paragraph (3).
``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under
this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such
Centers.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this
subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging
manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in
consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized manufacturers. One
or more themes for the competition may be identified, which
may vary from year to year, depending on the needs of
manufacturers and the success of previous competitions. These
themes shall be related to projects associated with
manufacturing extension activities, including supply chain
integration and quality management, and including the
transfer of technology based on the technological needs of
manufacturers and available technologies from institutions of
higher education, laboratories, and other technology
producing entities, or extend beyond these traditional areas.
``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time,
and containing such information as the Director shall
require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Advisory Board.

[[Page H4457]]

``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be
peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall
select proposals to receive awards--
``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches
to solving the problem described in the competition;
``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries
in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic
stability of that region.
``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under
this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching
contribution.''.

SEC. 204. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM.

Section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is amended to read as
follows:

``TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM

``Sec. 28. (a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Institute a Technology Innovation Program for the purpose of
assisting United States businesses and institutions of higher
education or other organizations, such as national
laboratories and nonprofit research institutes, to accelerate
the development and application of challenging, high-risk
technologies that promise widespread economic benefits for
the Nation.
``(b) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall make grants under
this section to eligible companies for research and
development on high-risk, high-payoff emerging and enabling
technologies that offer significant potential benefits to the
United States economy and a wide breadth of potential
application, and form an important technical basis for future
innovations. Such grants shall be made to eligible companies
that are--
``(A) small or medium-sized businesses that are
substantially involved in the research and development,
including having a leadership role in programmatically
steering the project and defining the research agenda; or
``(B) joint ventures.
``(2) Single company grants.--No grant made under paragraph
(1)(A) shall exceed $3,000,000 over 3 years. The Federal
share of a project funded by such a grant shall not be more
than 50 percent of total project costs. An award under
paragraph (1)(A) may be extended beyond 3 years only if the
Director transmits to the Committee on Science and Technology
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a full
and complete explanation of such award, including reasons for
exceeding 3 years. Federal funds granted under paragraph
(1)(A) may be used only for direct costs and not for indirect
costs, profits, or management fees of a contractor.
``(3) Joint venture grants.--No grant made under paragraph
(1)(B) shall exceed $9,000,000 over 5 years. The Federal
share of a project funded by such a grant shall not be more
than 50 percent of total project costs.
``(c) Award Criteria.--The Director shall award grants
under this section only to an eligible company--
``(1) whose proposal has scientific and technological
merit;
``(2) whose application establishes that the proposed
technology has strong potential to generate substantial
benefits to the Nation that extend significantly beyond the
direct return to the applicant;
``(3) whose application establishes that the research has
strong potential for advancing the state-of-the-art and
contributing significantly to the United States scientific
and technical knowledge base;
``(4) whose application establishes that the research is
aimed at overcoming a scientific or technological barrier;
``(5) who has provided a technical plan that clearly
identifies the core innovation, the technical approach, major
technical hurdles, and the attendant risks, and that clearly
establishes the feasibility of the technology through
adequately detailed plans linked to major technical barriers;
``(6) whose application establishes that the team proposed
to carry out the work has a high level of scientific and
technical expertise to conduct research and development, has
a high level of commitment to the project, and has access to
appropriate research facilities;
``(7) whose proposal explains why Technology Innovation
Program support is necessary;
``(8) whose application includes a plan for advancing the
technology into commercial use; and
``(9) whose application assesses the project's
organizational structure and management plan.
``(d) External Review of Proposals.--In order to analyze
the need for or the value of any proposal made by a joint
venture or company requesting the Director's assistance under
this section, or to monitor the progress of any project which
receives funds under this section, the Director shall consult
with industry or other expert sources that do not have a
proprietary or financial interest in the proposal or project.
``(e) Intellectual Property Rights Ownership.--
``(1) In general.--Title to any intellectual property
developed by a joint venture from assistance provided under
this section may vest in any participant in the joint
venture, as agreed by the members of the joint venture,
notwithstanding 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 participant in the joint venture, until the
expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with
such intellectual property.
``(2) Licensing.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to prohibit the licensing to any company of
intellectual property rights arising from assistance provided
under this section.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `intellectual property' means an invention patentable
under title 35, United States Code, or any patent on such an
invention, or any work for which copyright protection is
available under title 17, United States Code.
``(f) Program Operation.--Not later than 9 months after the
date of enactment of the Technology Innovation and
Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, the Director shall
issue regulations--
``(1) establishing criteria for the selection of recipients
of assistance under this section;
``(2) establishing procedures regarding financial reporting
and auditing to ensure that contracts and awards are used for
the purposes specified in this section, are in accordance
with sound accounting practices, and are not funding existing
or planned research programs that would be conducted in the
same time period in the absence of financial assistance under
this section; and
``(3) providing for appropriate dissemination of Technology
Innovation Program research results.
``(g) Continuation of ATP Grants.--The Director shall,
through the Technology Innovation Program, continue to
provide support originally awarded under the Advanced
Technology Program, in accordance with the terms of the
original award.
``(h) Coordination With Other Federal Technology
Programs.--In carrying out this section, the Director shall,
as appropriate, coordinate with other senior Federal
officials to ensure cooperation and coordination in Federal
technology programs and to avoid unnecessary duplication of
efforts.
``(i) Acceptance of Funds From Other Federal Agencies.--In
addition to amounts appropriated to carry out this section,
the Secretary and the Director may accept funds from other
Federal agencies to support awards under the Technology
Innovation Program. Any award under this section which is
supported with funds from other Federal agencies shall be
selected and carried out according to the provisions of this
section.
``(j) TIP Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Institute a Technology Innovation Program Advisory Board. The
TIP Advisory Board shall consist of 10 members appointed by
the Director, at least 7 of which shall be from United States
industry, chosen to reflect the wide diversity of technical
disciplines and industrial sectors represented in Technology
Innovation Program projects. No member shall be an employee
of the Federal Government.
``(2) Terms of office.--(A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C), the term of office of each member of
the TIP Advisory Board shall be 3 years.
``(B) The original members of the TIP Advisory Board shall
be appointed to 3 classes. One class of 3 members shall have
an initial term of 1 year, one class of 3 members shall have
an initial term of 2 years, and one class of 4 members shall
have an initial term of 3 years.
``(C) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor
was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such
term.
``(D) Any person who has completed two consecutive full
terms of service on the TIP Advisory Board shall thereafter
be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period
following the expiration of the second such term.
``(3) Purpose.--The TIP Advisory Board shall meet no less
than 2 times annually, and provide to the Director--
``(A) advice on programs, plans, and policies of the
Technology Innovation Program;
``(B) reviews of the Technology Innovation Program's
efforts to assess its economic impact;
``(C) reports on the general health of the program and its
effectiveness in achieving its legislatively mandated
mission;
``(D) guidance on areas of technology that are appropriate
for Technology Innovation Program funding; and
``(E) recommendations as to whether, in order to better
assess whether specific innovations to be pursued are being
adequately supported by the private sector, the Director
could benefit from advice and information from additional
industry and other expert sources without a proprietary or
financial interest in proposals being evaluated.
``(4) Advisory capacity.--In discharging its duties under
this subsection, the TIP Advisory Board shall function solely
in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
``(5) Annual report.--The TIP Advisory Board shall transmit
an annual report to the Secretary for transmittal to the
Congress within 30 days after the submission to Congress of
the President's annual budget request in each year. Such
report shall address the status of the Technology Innovation
Program and comment on the relevant sections of the
programmatic planning document and updates thereto
transmitted to the Congress by the Director under section
23(c) and (d).
``(k) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `eligible company' means a company that is
incorporated in the United States and does a majority of its
business in the United States, and that either--
``(A) is majority owned by citizens of the United States;
or

[[Page H4458]]

``(B) is owned by a parent company incorporated in another
country and the Director finds that--
``(i) the company's participation in the Technology
Innovation Program would be in the economic interest of the
United States, as evidenced by--

``(I) investments in the United States in research and
manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components
or subassemblies in the United States);
``(II) significant contributions to employment in the
United States; and
``(III) agreement with respect to any technology arising
from assistance provided under this section to promote the
manufacture within the United States of products resulting
from that technology (taking into account the goals of
promoting the competitiveness of United States industry); and

``(ii) the company is incorporated in a country which--

``(I) affords to United States-owned companies
opportunities, comparable to those afforded to any other
company, to participate in any joint venture similar to those
receiving funding under this section;
``(II) affords to United States-owned companies local
investment opportunities comparable to those afforded any
other company; and
``(III) affords adequate and effective protection for the
intellectual property rights of United States-owned
companies;

``(2) the term `institution of higher education' has the
meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001);
``(3) the term `joint venture' means a joint venture that--
``(A) includes either--
``(i) at least 2 separately owned for-profit companies that
are both substantially involved in the project and both of
which are contributing to the cost-sharing required under
this section, with the lead entity of the joint venture being
one of those companies that is a small or medium-sized
business; or
``(ii) at least one small or medium-sized business and one
institution of higher education or other organization, such
as a national laboratory or nonprofit research institute,
that are both substantially involved in the project and both
of which are contributing to the cost-sharing required under
this section, with the lead entity of the joint venture being
either that small or medium-sized business or that
institution of higher education; and
``(B) may include additional for-profit companies,
institutions of higher education, and other organizations,
such as national laboratories and nonprofit research
institutes, that may or may not contribute non-Federal funds
to the project; and
``(4) the term `TIP Advisory Board' means the advisory
board established under subsection (j).''.

SEC. 205. RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS.

Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-l) is amended by striking ``up
to 1 per centum of the'' and inserting ``up to 1.5 percent of
the''.

SEC. 206. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the first section 32 (15 U.S.C. 271
note) as section 34 and moving it to the end of the Act; and
(2) by inserting before the section moved by paragraph (1)
the following new section:

``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

``(a) Authority.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a pilot
program of awards to partnerships among participants
described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in
paragraph (3). Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed,
competitive basis.
``(2) Participants.--Such partnerships shall include at
least--
``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this
section is to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms,
educational institutions, research institutions, State
agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the
development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing
technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this
section shall conduct applied research to develop new
manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and
competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build
lasting alliances among collaborators.
``(b) Program Contribution.--Awards under this section
shall provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a
partnership. Not more than an additional one-third of such
costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other
Federal sources.
``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this
section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and
containing such information as the Director shall require.
Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and
carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
``(2) the research that the grant would fund; and
``(3) how the research to be funded with the award would
contribute to improved performance, productivity, and
competitiveness of the United States manufacturing industry.
``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for
awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a
minimum--
``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact
on manufacturing;
``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the
proposed projects; and
``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to
successfully carry out the proposed research.
``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this
section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable,
a distribution of overall awards among a variety of
manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director
shall run a single pilot competition to solicit and make
awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.

SEC. 207. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Director is authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a
robust research community working at the leading edge of
manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a
program to award--
``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute
for research activities related to manufacturing sciences;
and
``(B) senior research fellowships to established
researchers in industry or at institutions of higher
education who wish to pursue studies related to the
manufacturing sciences at the Institute.
``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this
subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may require.
``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this subsection, the Director
shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships
at a level consistent with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent
with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical
position.''.

SEC. 208. MEETINGS OF VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.

Section 10(d) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278(d)) is amended by striking
``quarterly'' and inserting ``twice each year''.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS.

Section 19 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-2) is amended by striking
``nor more than 60 new fellows'' and inserting ``nor more
than 120 new fellows''.

SEC. 302. FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS CLARIFICATION.

Section 2(b)(4) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)(4)) is amended by inserting
``and grants and cooperative agreements,'' after
``arrangements,''.

SEC. 303. WORKING CAPITAL FUND TRANSFERS.

Section 12 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278b) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Amount and Source of Transfers.--Not more than one-
quarter of one percent of the amounts appropriated to the
Institute for any fiscal year may be transferred to the fund,
in addition to any other transfer authority. In addition,
funds provided to the Institute from other Federal agencies
for the purpose of production of Standard Reference Materials
may be transferred to the fund.''.

SEC. 304. RETENTION OF DEPRECIATION SURCHARGE.

Section 14 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278d) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Within'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Retention of Fees.--The Director is authorized to
retain all building use and depreciation surcharge fees
collected pursuant to OMB Circular A-25. Such fees shall be
collected and credited to the Construction of Research
Facilities Appropriation Account for use in maintenance and
repair of the Institute's existing facilities.''.

SEC. 305. NON-ENERGY INVENTIONS PROGRAM.

Section 27 of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278m) is repealed.

SEC. 306. REDEFINITION OF THE METRIC SYSTEM.

Section 3570 of the Revised Statues of the United States
(derived from section 2 of the Act of July 28, 1866, entitled
``An Act to authorize the Use of the Metric System of Weights
and Measures'' (15 U.S.C. 205; 14 Stat. 339)) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 3570. METRIC SYSTEM DEFINED.

``The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the
International System of Units as established in 1960, and
subsequently maintained, by the General Conference of Weights
and Measures, and as interpreted or modified for the United
States by the Secretary of Commerce.''.

SEC. 307. REPEAL OF REDUNDANT AND OBSOLETE AUTHORITY.

The Act of July 21, 1950, entitled ``An Act To redefine the
units and establish the standards of electrical and
photometric measurements'' (15 U.S.C. 223 and 224) is
repealed.

SEC. 308. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARD TIME AND TIME ZONES.

(a) Section 1 of the Act of March 19, 1918, (commonly known
as the ``Calder Act'') (15 U.S.C. 261) is amended--

[[Page H4459]]

(1) by striking the second sentence and the extra period
after it and inserting ``Except as provided in section 3(a)
of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a), the
standard time of the first zone shall be Coordinated
Universal Time retarded by 4 hours; that of the second zone
retarded by 5 hours; that of the third zone retarded by 6
hours; that of the four zone retarded by 7 hours; that of the
fifth zone retarded by 8 hours; that of the sixth zone
retarded by 9 hours; that of the seventh zone retarded by 10
hours; that of the eighth zone retarded by 11 hours; and that
of the ninth zone shall be Coordinated Universal Time
advanced by 10 hours.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In this section,
the term `Coordinated Universal Time' means the time scale
maintained through the General Conference of Weights and
Measures and interpreted or modified for the United States by
the Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary
of the Navy.''
(b) Section 3 of the Act of March 19, 1918, (commonly known
as the ``Calder Act'') (15 U.S.C. 264) is amended by striking
``third zone'' and inserting ``fourth zone''.

SEC. 309. PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY AND INTERMITTENT SERVICES.

(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology may procure the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants (or
organizations thereof) in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code to assist on urgent or short-term
research projects.
(b) Extent of Authority.--A procurement under this section
may not exceed 1 year in duration, and the Director shall
procure no more than 200 experts and consultants per year.
(c) Sunset.--This section shall cease to be effective after
September 30, 2010.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate on whether
additional safeguards would be needed with respect to the use
of authorities granted under this section if such authorities
were to be made permanent.

SEC. 310. MALCOLM BALDRIGE AWARDS.

Section 17(c)(3) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(3)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(3) In any year, not more than 18 awards may be made
under this section to recipients who have not previously
received an award under this section, and no award shall be
made within any category described in paragraph (1) if there
are no qualifying enterprises in that category.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 110-118. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Wu

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 110-118.
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Wu:
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(a), insert
``research and'' after ``to accelerate the''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(a), strike
``technologies'' and insert ``, high-reward technologies in
areas of critical national need''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(b)(1), strike
``this section to eligible companies'' and insert ``this
section'' .
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(b)(1), strike
``high-payoff'' and insert ``high-reward''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(b)(1), strike
``offer significant potential benefits to the United States
economy and'' and insert ``address critical national needs
and have''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(b)(1), strike
``eligible companies that are''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(b)(1)(A), insert
``eligible companies that are'' before ``small or''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(h), insert
``State and'' after ``Coordination With Other''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(h), insert
``State and'' after ``with other senior''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(h), insert
``State and'' after ``coordination in''.
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(k), insert the
following new paragraph after paragraph (1) (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(2) the term `high-risk, high-reward research' means
research that--
``(A) has the potential for yielding results with far-
ranging or wide-ranging implications;
``(B) addresses critical national needs related to
technology and measurement standards; and
``(C) is too novel or spans too diverse a range of
disciplines to fare well in the traditional peer review
process.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 350, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with
Dr. Gingrey, the ranking member of the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee. This amendment was developed as a result of
recommendations of the Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
The amendment ensures that the Technology Innovation Program, TIP,
will focus on high-reward technologies in areas of critical national
need. In addition, it provides additional guidance that the program
must coordinate with similar State organizations and programs. Many
States have developed innovation agendas to stimulate job growth, and
it makes sense that we should ensure that this program coordinates with
these existing programs.
Finally, the amendment includes a definition of high-risk, high-
reward research. Dr. Gingrey and I worked closely in developing this
amendment, and I would urge its adoption.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
This is a good amendment and I support it. In response to concerns
from the administration, as explained earlier, it clarifies that the
Technology Innovation Program will only support projects that address
critical national needs.
It also expands the definition of high-risk research to ensure that
the TIP program will only support projects that are too novel or
diverse to fare well in the traditional peer review or venture capital
process.
I urge my colleagues to support the Wu-Gingrey amendment. And I also
want to just comment, Mr. Gingrey certainly wished to be here. I am
filling in his role only because he had to travel home for a funeral,
and he may reappear yet before the end of this particular bill.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I regret that Dr. Gingrey is not able to be with
us today because of a funeral at home, and I would like to just
reiterate my appreciation for his hard work on this amendment and my
support for this amendment.

{time} 1415

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 110-118.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 110-118.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of title II, insert the following new section
(and amend the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 209. MANUFACTURING RESEARCH DATABASE.

(a) Establishment.--The National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall provide for the establishment of a
manufacturing research database to enable private sector
individuals and Federal officials to access a broad range of
information on manufacturing research carried out with
funding support from the Federal Government.
(b) Contents.--The database established under subsection
(a) shall contain--
(1) all publicly available information maintained by a
Federal agency relating to manufacturing research projects
funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government; and
(2) information about all Federal programs that may be of
interest to manufacturers.

[[Page H4460]]

(c) Accessibility.--Information contained in the database
shall be accessible in a manner to enable users of the
database to easily retrieve information of specific interest
to them.
(d) Fees.--The National Institute of Standards and
Technology may authorize charging a nominal fee for using the
database to access information described in subsection (b)(1)
as necessary to recover the costs of maintaining the
database.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology $2,000,000 for carrying out this section.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 350, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I will not use the 5 minutes, and submit
my full remarks in the Record.
This amendment is very simple. It authorizes $2 million for NIST to
develop a software package so that manufacturers have basic information
about all the Federal programs available to assist them, particularly
in the area of research and development. It will provide a link so that
manufacturers would know the latest status of all Federal R&D projects
relating to manufacturing.
I first realized the need for this software after speaking at a
speaking engagement in Nashville, Tennessee. I was walking on the
showroom floor and found a major manufacturer from Kansas City with a
display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature spur
gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a Lincoln penny. The EIGERlab
in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of displaying their
miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of the major manufacturer if
they had heard of the micro machining work done at the EIGERlab. The
Kansas City manufacturer had done its work by using an EDM. The
EIGERlab had done its work using a milling process. Neither of these
parties had known of each other. It dawned on me that I was the only
person that knew these two places were making the exact same product,
although by different methods, and both were being funded by the
Defense Department.
The story illustrates the need for software that allows users to
monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted
relating to manufacturing and the status and purpose of the research.
My vision for the system would be that the final product would be
easily accessible on NIST's Web site. NIST would also be authorized by
my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use of the service, if
they so choose, to establish and maintain the Web site. If a fee is
imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to
reflect the actual cost.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I am proud to represent a district that has a county
with the second highest concentration of manufacturing as a percentage
its share of the local economy in the entire Nation. Only one other
county in America with a population of 250,000 or less has more
manufacturing than the county that surrounds the second largest city in
Illinois--Rockford. I have made it my life mission to get to know all
about manufacturing. I have visited literally hundreds of factories and
small shops all around the world to enhance my education about this
vital sector of our economy.
I crafted this amendment because I have been frustrated during my
time in Congress that no one has a complete picture of who is doing
what in the Federal government concerning manufacturing. No one has a
complete list of the federal programs available to help manufacturers,
not even the Manufacturing Czar at Commerce. Right now, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is finalizing a report at my request to
document all of the programs that deal with manufacturing. Thus far,
they have informed me that there are over 280 programs spread
throughout the Federal agencies that focus in some aspect on
manufacturing.
This problem is compounded further by a lack of transparency among
Federal agencies in terms of funding that is approved for certain
projects. Plus, manufacturers who would like to avail themselves of
various Federal programs do not know where to turn for answers. You
would think that somewhere a matrix exists that details what firms are
receiving Federal R&D money and how it is being used, but I can tell
you that it does not. Let me share with you one clear example.
After a speaking engagement in Tennessee, I was walking the showroom
floor and found a major manufacturer out of Kansas City, Missouri with
a display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature
spur gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a penny. The penny was
enclosed in a plastic box with a magnified top so that you can see the
gear. The EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of
displaying their miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of this
major manufacturer if they had heard of the EIGERlab and the work they
are doing on micromachining. They had not. It dawned on me that I was
the only person that knew these two places were making the exact same
product and both were being funded by the Defense Department.

This story illustrates well the need for software that allows users
to monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted
related to manufacturing, and the status and purpose of the research.
This software would allow users to input the material type or process
being used and it would scan for all federal dollars being put towards
the searched criteria. The purpose of this amendment is to cut down on
the possible duplication of research going on even within the same
agency.
My amendment would authorize a $2 million dollar set aside for
software to develop this system so that manufacturers would have basic
information about all the federal programs available to assist them and
also to provide a link so that they would be able to know the latest
status on all of the federal R&D projects related to manufacturing.
NIST could either develop this software system themselves or contract
it out to someone else. My vision for this system would be that the
final product would be easily accessible on NIST's web site. NIST would
also be authorized by my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use
of this service if they so choose to help establish and maintain the
web site just as the Department of Commerce does with other services
such as in-depth market research for exporters. The fee could be a
yearly subscription for frequent users or a per visit charge. If a fee
is imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to
reflect actual cost.
This is a very important amendment and I urge my colleagues to
support it. If this interactive software can be established, this will
be a huge accomplishment, particularly for small manufacturers.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment,
although it is not my intent to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WU. The gentleman from Illinois' amendment will provide useful
information to our manufacturing sector, and its inclusion will
strengthen a bill already focused on competitiveness in manufacturing.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairwoman, there's no need to repeat the contents
of the amendment. I believe it is a good amendment. I believe it is a
needed amendment, and I particularly like that it will be self-funding,
although there is a small amount of money needed to start it off, but
from that point it should be self-funded, should NIST decide to do
that. So I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 110-118.
Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time when the gentleman's amendment was in
order has passed. Amendment No. 4 is now in order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WYNN. Would it be permissible to have my amendment considered at
the end of the amendments?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole is not able to

[[Page H4461]]

change the order of the amendments established by House Resolution 350.
Mr. WYNN. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 110-118.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas:
In section 204, in the proposed section 28(c)(2), insert
``, to include the replacement of petroleum-based
materials,'' after ``benefits to the Nation''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 350, the
gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman's
willingness to highlight the potential cost savings to the Nation
through the research and commercialization of plastics technology
utilizing renewable energy sources for common plastics applications. I
hope that the Director of the National Institute of Technology will
give attention to the collaborative efforts between universities and
small and medium-sized businesses in the development of economical
methods of manufacturing common plastic items from renewable energy
sources.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I want to assure the gentlelady from Kansas
that we will be happy to work with her to address her concerns as this
bill moves through the legislative process.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 110-118.
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Scott of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 1868) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________