[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11189-11198]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 11190]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 11191]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 11192]]

  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. MITCHELL. Madam Chairman, as we find ourselves falling farther 
and farther behind countries like China and India, which are graduating 
thousands more engineers and mathematicians than we are, America needs 
continued technological innovation to remain atop the global economy.
  Yet industrial research and development that leads to breakthrough 
innovation is often expensive, and positive results are often a long 
time coming.
  This can be especially problematic for small businesses. But America 
cannot afford not to help small business get the technology and 
training they need to compete in the world market.
  I sponsored and supported H.R. 1868 in committee, largely because it 
includes two programs to help small businesses: the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership and the Technology Innovation Program.
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership helps America's small 
manufacturers improve productivity and competitiveness through 
technology. The Technology Innovation Program too assists small 
business to pursue new technology development.
  By supporting these programs we are supporting industry and ensuring 
that our economy continues to lead the world in technological 
innovation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1868.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act, 
which will reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, for the next 3 years.
  H.R. 1868 is the first reauthorization of NIST since 1991. 
Authorizing $2.5 billion over 3 years, this bill would increase funding 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which keeps jobs 
in the United States; creates the Technology Innovation Program, which 
allows universities partnering with businesses to apply for funding 
through NIST and speed research in high-risk, high-reward technologies 
in areas of critical national needs; continue funding NIST on a 10-year 
path to doubling; and provide necessary construction funding for 
laboratory upgrades.

[[Page 11193]]

  Founded in 1901 under the National Bureau of Standards Act, NIST has 
been in the forefront of innovative technology in areas of public 
safety, industrial competitiveness and economic growth through 
standards and measurements. Its mission is to promote U.S. innovation 
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, 
standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 
improve our quality of life.
  NIST works tirelessly with industry, universities, and other 
government agencies to address technological innovations that will 
fundamentally change products and services available in the 21st 
century. NIST is renowned for working on cutting edge technology. 
Innovations from this research will ultimately impact our quality of 
life.
  Also supported in this reauthorization would be the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award, founded by NIST and given by the President of 
the United States. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 
recognizes businesses for their standard of performance excellence in 
their business practices. Minnesota has been the recipient of three 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards in the past 10 years. Most 
recently in 2005, Sunny Fresh Foods, Incorporated won its second 
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for its quality and leadership 
that continually focuses people and business processes on improving 
product and services to its customers and stakeholders.
  NIST sits at the nexus of science and industry. NIST's unique role is 
to advance measurements and standards so that the next innovation can 
be realized and commercialized. In today's global economy, the ability 
of the United States to remain competitive relies increasingly on our 
ability to develop and commercialize innovative technologies. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1868 in order for National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to remain as the premier institute for 
measurements and standards in the world.
  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.
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

[[Page 11194]]

     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.
       ``(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

[[Page 11195]]

     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
       ``(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.''.

[[Page 11196]]



     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--
       (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.


[[Page 11197]]


  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.
       (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.

[[Page 11198]]

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 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.

                          ____________________