[Senate Report 113-247]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-247
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 547
REVITALIZE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND INNOVATION ACT OF 2013
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1468
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
August 26, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 5
(legislative day, August 1), 2014
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred thirteenth congress
second session
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DANIEL COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
ED MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN WALSH, Montana
Ellen Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel
Calendar No. 547
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-247
======================================================================
REVITALIZE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND INNOVATION ACT OF 2013
_______
August 26, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 5
(legislative day, August1), 2014
_______
Mr. Rockefeller, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1468]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1468) to require the Secretary
of Commerce to establish the Network for Manufacturing
Innovation and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 1468, the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, is to require the
Secretary of Commerce to establish the Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, a national program of public-private
centers to accelerate innovation and investment in industrially
relevant manufacturing technologies with broad commercial
applications.
Background and Needs
Manufacturing had long been a cornerstone of the U.S.
economy until the country's shift toward a services-reliant
economy in the postwar era. Between 1947 and 2009,
manufacturing shrank from more than a quarter of the gross
domestic product (GDP) to just a ninth of it.\1\ In the same
time, white-collar work grew from accounting for less than a
fifth of GDP to nearly half of it.\2\ In the first decade of
the 21st century, the manufacturing sector saw even more
drastic losses, with nearly one-third of the manufacturing
workforce and 57,000 factories disappearing.\3\ Broadly
speaking, industries of all shapes and sizes have moved much of
their production overseas for cheaper labor, emerging market
access, and favorable tax regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Brian McGill, ``This Is What America's Manufacturing Story Looks
Like,'' The Atlantic, December 9, 2010, at www.theatlantic.com/
business/archive/2010/12/this-is-what-americas-manu facturing-story-
looks-like/67765.
\2\Id.
\3\Testimony of AFL-CIO Executive Director Robert Baugh, in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Made in
the USA: Manufacturing Policy, the Defense Industrial Base and U.S.
National Security, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., September 22,
2010, H. Rept. 111-153 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. manufacturing sector has shown some signs of
improvement in the aftermath of the Great Recession, growing
about twice as fast as the overall U.S. economy since 2010. Yet
these gains have not made up the losses of the preceding two
decades, and questions remain whether these positive trends are
durable and lasting. Experts mainly point to global
circumstances--such as the growing cost of overseas labor,
freight, and supply chain disruptions--for the recent
improvement in U.S. manufacturing. Others cite declining
domestic energy costs--as a result of falling prices and/or
increased energy efficiency--as a key component to a resurgence
in American manufacturing. However, some analysts believe
prospects for significant job growth may be limited because of
what they term a ``hollowing out,'' in which companies move
more of their high-value work abroad.\4\ For instance, since
June 2009, the U.S. manufacturing sector has seen a 20 percent
increase in output but just a 2 percent increase in
employment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Marc Levinson, Job Creation in the Manufacturing Revival,
Congressional Research Service, June 19, 2013.
\5\Marc Levinson, ``Hollowing Out'' in U.S. Manufacturing: Analysis
and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, April 15,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consequences of a diminished manufacturing sector,
scholars say, are significant and many.\6\ First, because
manufacturing jobs tend to require higher-level skills, they
are relatively well-paying and difficult to replace once they
are gone. A recent report found that the pay and benefits in
manufacturing were 20 percent higher than in non-manufacturing
sectors.\7\ And with global manufacturing increasingly becoming
more advanced and productive--requiring proficiency in
mathematics and science--the United States stands to lose out
on the relatively high-paying jobs and middle-class
opportunities that go with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Gary Pisano and Willy Shih, ``Restoring American
Competitiveness,'' Harvard Business Review (2009), at http://
dailyreporter.com/files/ 2012/11/restoring-american-
competitiveness1.pdf.
\7\Bruce Stokes, ``Act II for American Manufacturing?,'' National
Journal, December 9, 2010, at http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/
no_20100508_1960.php/american-manufacturing-s-new-future-is-emerging-
but-it-may-need-help-20101209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the loss of manufacturing jobs has caused disparate
impacts on the Nation, with towns and cities long dependent on
manufacturing facing high unemployment and high obstacles in
attracting new businesses. The ripple effects of a factory
closure extend beyond the immediate community, affecting not
only the factory's supply chain but the numerous businesses
that once provided--for instance--software, telecommunications
services, utilities, marketing and sales support, building and
equipment maintenance, and janitorial services.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Richard McCormack, ``The Plight of American Manufacturing,''
American Prospect, December 21, 2009, at http://prospect.org/article/
plight-american-manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector has
arguably hurt national security.\9\ The United States has
become more dependent on foreign nations to produce technology
that is critical for its infrastructure and defense. For
example, the production of semiconductors, printed circuit
boards, machine tools, propellant chemicals, and space
qualified electronics--all of which are critical to U.S.
defense capabilities--have seen a shift overseas.\10\
Additionally, national security depends on highly trained
workers to operate highly complex machinery, but the offshoring
of production and the migration of industrial talent away from
the United States may leave the country without the
manufacturing capacity needed in times of national
emergency.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See generally Testimony of Economic Policy Institute
Distinguished Fellow Jeff Faux, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Made in the USA: Manufacturing Policy,
the Defense Industrial Base and U.S. National Security, hearings, 111th
Cong., 2nd sess., September 22, 2010, H. Rept. 111-153 (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2010).
\10\Testimony of AFL-CIO Executive Director Robert Baugh, in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Made in
the USA: Manufacturing Policy, the Defense Industrial Base and U.S.
National Security, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., September 22,
2010, H. Rept. 111-153 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010).
\11\Testimony of Michael R. Wessel, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Made in the USA:
Manufacturing Policy, the Defense Industrial Base and U.S. National
Security, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., September 22, 2010, H.
Rept. 111-153 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the offshoring of production can weaken the
country's innovative capacity. While the United States remains
the global leader in research and development (R&D), a
diminished manufacturing sector at home may prevent the
development and commercialization of the fruits of the
country's R&D capabilities. As a result, innovative companies
and skilled workers may see increasing incentive to move
overseas to be closer to cutting-edge work. The offshoring of
R&D is already starting to take root: R&D expenditures from
U.S.-based multinational companies in Asian markets increased
from 5 percent to 14 percent between 1955 and 2006.\12\ And,
over the last decade, the share of U.S. corporate R&D sites
located in the United States has fallen from 59 percent to 52
percent.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Testimony of Dr. Robert D. Atkinson, President of the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, in U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Innovation in
America: Opportunities and Obstacles, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess.,
June 22, 2010, S. Rept. 111-1018 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010).
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the detrimental effects of a weak U.S.
manufacturing sector, policymakers, commentators, and industry
stakeholders have pointed to the need for addressing the
obstacles between R&D and commercialization, often referred to
as the ``valley of death.'' Many U.S.-based discoveries never
make it out of the laboratory or, alternatively, make it out of
the laboratory only to be produced overseas. As such,
proponents for action have called for helping domestic
companies commercialize U.S. innovations by aligning public
policies with the investment decisions of the manufacturing
community, maximizing the country's ability to retain
production and manufacturing jobs here at home.
Other countries have reached the same conclusion. At
Chairman Rockefeller's request, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) examined innovative manufacturing initiatives in
foreign countries. In July 2013, GAO issued a report finding
that, relative to the United States, four countries with
advanced economies with robust manufacturing sectors--Canada,
Germany, Japan, and South Korea--place greater emphasis on
commercialization programs to help their manufacturers bridge
the gap between innovative ideas and sales.\14\ These include
programs that support infrastructure as well as provide hands-
on technical and product development services to businesses, in
addition to programs that foster collaboration between
manufacturers and researchers.\15\ In contrast, the United
States relies heavily on competitive funding for R&D
projects.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Global Manufacturing:
Foreign Government Programs Differ in Some Key Respects from Those in
the United States, GAO-13-365, July 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
660/656239.pdf.
\15\Id.
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the aforementioned ``valley of death,''
President Obama formally unveiled the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) in his fiscal year 2013 budget,
calling for the establishment of 15 institutes with $1 billion
in mandatory funding over 9 years.\17\ NNMI, according to the
Administration, would help accelerate innovation by investing
in manufacturing technologies that have broad applications for
industry and would further support their commercialization by
creating a space for the public and private sectors, including
university researchers and industry, to collaborate, advancing
innovations at a much faster rate than any one company could on
its own.\18\ While Congress has yet to pass legislation on the
proposal, the Administration has used existing authorities and
funds to establish a pilot institute focused on additive, or 3-
D, manufacturing in 2012--known as America Makes (or the
National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute) in
Youngstown, Ohio--and to begin the establishment of three more
institutes. In January 2014, the Administration announced the
first of these three institutes: a Department of Energy-funded
hub in Raleigh, North Carolina, that will focus on advanced
semi-conductors to reduce energy use. In February 2014, the
Administration announced the formation of the two other
institutes to be funded by the Department of Defense and non-
Federal matching funds: one in Detroit, Michigan, focused on
lightweight, high-performing alloys, and one in Chicago,
Illinois, focused on digital manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\White House, Office of the Press Secretary, ``President Obama
to Announce New Efforts to Support Manufacturing Innovation, Encourage
Insourcing,'' press release, March 9, 2012, at www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2012/03/09/president-obama-announce-new-efforts-support-
manufacturing-innovation-en.
\18\Testimony of Patrick D. Gallagher, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Assembling the Facts:
Examining the Proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,
hearings, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 31, 2012, H. Rept. 112-86
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
S. 1468 would establish public-private institutes that
would leverage promising R&D for commercial manufacturing
purposes. By forming manufacturing ``hubs'' involving
universities, community colleges, industry, and relevant
government stakeholders, the purpose of these institutes would
be to bridge the innovation gap, colloquially known as the
``valley of death,'' whereby R&D with potentially broad
commercial applications fails to materialize into tangible
product development. The institutes would be assessed, among
other things, on their outreach and engagement with small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to improve the capacity of such
enterprises to commercialize new processes and technologies.
The bill would also provide students and workers with the
education and skills necessary to participate in the advanced
manufacturing workforce through the institutes.
Legislative History
Senators Brown and Blunt introduced S. 1468 on August 1,
2013. The bill is also cosponsored by Senators Graham, Schumer,
Stabenow, Kirk, Coons, Collins, King, Levin, Reed, Wicker,
Boozman, Ayotte, Rockefeller, and Udall of New Mexico. The bill
has received support from numerous companies, associations, and
educational institutions.
On November 13, 2013, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation held a hearing, ``The Role of Manufacturing
Hubs in a 21st Century Innovation Economy,'' which included
discussion and consideration of S. 1468. On April 9, 2014, in
an open Executive Session, the Committee considered the bill
and ordered reported S. 1468, as amended, favorably by voice
vote. At the Executive Session, the Chairman and Ranking Member
expressed their shared understanding that identification of an
appropriate offset for the cost of the proposed new program
would be necessary to garner support for Senate passage of the
legislation. The Committee adopted a substitute amendment from
Senator Blunt, a first-degree amendment from Senator Klobuchar,
and a first-degree amendment from Senator Pryor.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2014.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1468, the Revitalize
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
S. 1468--Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014
Summary: S. 1468 would establish the Network for
Manufacturing Innovation Program (NMIP) within the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Under the
program, NIST would award grants to establish a network of
centers of innovation to improve the competitiveness of
domestic manufacturers. The bill also would require several
studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other
agencies as well as the development of a strategic plan for
advanced manufacturing.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1468 would cost $265
million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. Enacting S. 1468 could affect direct
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO
estimates, however, that such effects would be insignificant.
Enacting S. 1468 would not affect revenues.
S. 1468 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 1468 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370
(commerce and housing credit).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION\a\
Network for Manufacturing Innovation:
Authorization Level............................ 300 0 0 0 0 300
Estimated Outlays.............................. 30 60 75 60 30 255
Reports:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 8 0 1 2 * 11
Estimated Outlays.............................. 5 3 0 1 1 10
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.............. 308 0 1 2 * 311
Estimated Outlays.......................... 35 63 75 61 31 265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
\a\CBO estimates that enacting S. 1468 also would have an insignificant effect on direct spending.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1468 will be enacted near the end of 2014, that the necessary
amounts will be appropriated near the beginning of each fiscal
year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for
similar activities.
Spending subject to appropriation
Network for Manufacturing Innovation. S. 1468 would
authorize the appropriation of $300 million to establish a
network of centers to support research and development,
education, training, and other efforts to improve the capacity
of domestic manufacturers to use advanced technology. Under the
bill, NIST would be required to develop a strategic plan for
the program and a system to award and oversee grants to
eligible applicants, and to report to the Congress annually on
program performance.
Based on information from NIST, CBO expects that the agency
would create four institutes with the funds made available
under the bill. Those new institutes would join four existing
institutes that were created with funds from the Departments of
Defense and Energy and four other institutes currently under
development. CBO estimates that implementing the NMIP would
cost $255 million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming
appropriation of the specified amount.
Reports. The bill also would require NIST to develop a
national strategic plan for advanced manufacturing that would
be updated every four years. Further, S. 1468 would require
several reports to the Congress by GAO and other agencies
including an assessment of NMIP operations every two years, an
evaluation of the competitiveness of the United States in
international trade, and a survey measuring the economic effect
of Chinese holdings of rare earth elements (metals that tend to
be found together in geologic deposits but often not in
concentrations high enough to be extracted economically).
Based on information from NIST and the International Trade
Administration (ITA), CBO estimates that preparing the
strategic plan and the additional reports would cost about $10
million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. Of that amount, CBO estimates that NIST
would spend about $4 million to develop and update the
strategic plan for advanced manufacturing, and the ITA would
spend $5 million to complete the survey and the report on
China's holdings of rare earth elements.
Direct spending
S. 1468 would authorize NIST to accept funds from private
entities to carry out the NMIP and would make those amounts
available to the agency without further appropriation. Based on
information from NIST, CBO estimates that this provision would
have an insignificant effect on net direct spending because
amounts collected would be small, less than $500,000 per year.
Any additional collections subsequently would be spent by the
agency.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1468 would affect
direct spending because the bill would authorize NIST to accept
and spend funds from private entities without further
appropriation action, but those effects would be insignificant.
Enacting S. 1468 would not affect revenues.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1468
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell;
Impact on the Private Sector: Marin Burnett.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 1468 would establish public-private institutes that
would leverage promising R&D for commercial manufacturing
purposes. The bill would direct the Department of Commerce to
competitively award funding to applicants that meet key
criteria. While there are no new regulatory requirements in the
bill, any institute awarded funding under the bill would be
subject to any rules and reporting requirements established by
the bill or by the Department of Commerce.
economic impact
This legislation is not expected to have an adverse
economic impact on the Nation. The bill would establish public-
private partnerships aimed at strengthening innovation and the
U.S. manufacturing sector.
privacy
S. 1468 would not have a negative impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
paperwork
S. 1468 would create new reporting requirements for the
Department of Commerce, the recipients of financial assistance
under the Program, and GAO. The Secretary of Commerce would be
required to submit at least every two years to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology a strategic
plan to guide the Program, and the Secretary of Commerce would
also be required to submit each year to Congress a report
describing the performance of the Program. Each recipient of
financial assistance would be required to submit annually to
the Secretary of Commerce a report describing the finances and
performance of the Centers for Manufacturing Innovation. GAO
would be required to submit at least every two years to
Congress a report assessing the operations of the Program.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title.
Section 1 would establish the title of the bill as the
``Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of
2014.''
Section 2. Findings.
Section 2 would establish the findings of the bill,
including the benefits of advanced manufacturing and
comparative global statistics.
Section 3. Establishment of Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
Section 3 would create a Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NMI) Program within the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Department of Commerce.
The section further would establish the purposes of the NMI
Program: to measurably improve competitiveness in U.S.
manufacturing; to stimulate innovation; to facilitate the
transition of innovative and transformative technologies into
viable commercial applications; to provide manufacturing
enterprises with access to capital-intensive infrastructure and
technologies; to measurably accelerate skilled workforce
development; to facilitate the exchange of best practices; and
to leverage non-Federal capital to develop a self-sustaining
business model. The NMI Program would be administered by the
National Office of the Network for Manufacturing Innovation
Program (National Program Office) and by a Director, as
designated by the Secretary of Commerce.
Section 3 also would define and structure the Centers for
Manufacturing Innovation (CMIs), which would make up the NMI
Program. Specifically, CMIs would address challenges in
advanced manufacturing and focus on a manufacturing process,
new material or technology, supply-chain integration
methodology, or another aspect of advanced manufacturing; focus
on improving U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, accelerate
investment in advanced manufacturing capacity, and enable
commercial application of new technologies; foster active
participation among industry, research universities, community
colleges, and other relevant entities; engage in research,
development, and demonstration projects, including proof-of-
concept prototyping, to reduce the cost, time, and risk of
commercializing new industry-driven technologies and processes
with economic or national security implications; develop
education and training programs and conduct outreach and
engagement with small- and medium-size businesses; and include
existing centers, such as the National Additive Manufacturing
Innovation Institute (recently renamed America Makes).
The National Program Office would provide financial support
for CMIs by conducting a competitive, merit-based selection
process upon receiving applications, which would be required to
specify the sources and amounts of non-Federal financial
support. Furthermore, the National Program Office would consult
with agencies whose missions overlap with advanced
manufacturing. In considering applications, the National
Program Office would award bids based on the potential economic
impact of an applicant's innovative focus, the level of non-
Federal financial support, degree of engagement with SMEs,
plans for workforce development, and regional assets, among
other factors. Furthermore, the Secretary must consider ability
of potential CMIs to leverage continuing non-Federal support
and eventually become self-sustaining. An explanation of the
merits of a winning application and the bases for the award
would be made publicly available at the time of the award. The
Secretary of Commerce would also be required to develop and
implement performance metrics to assess the effectiveness of
the activities funded.
Federal financial support for a CMI would be limited to
seven years in duration and up to 50 percent of the CMI's total
funding. The amount of Federal financial support would decrease
after the second year of funding and each year thereafter,
unless the CMI has met its goals and metrics, encountered
unforeseen circumstances, and can identify future non-Federal
funding sources. The National Program Office would be limited
to providing financial support for no more than 15 CMIs in a
single year.
Under section 3, the National Program Office would also be
responsible for, among other things, reporting to Congress on
the NMI plan, disseminating best practices, and establishing a
clearinghouse of public information about the NMI Program. In
addition, CMIs would be required to submit annual reports to
the National Program Office, and GAO would be directed to
conduct an assessment of the NMI Program every two years.
Section 3 would authorize a one-time sum of $300,000,000
for the NMI Program, and rescind an equal amount of unobligated
discretionary appropriations. The Secretary of Commerce would
also be permitted to use no more than 10 percent of the funds
of any economic development, manufacturing, or small business
assistance program, except for the Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Program, to carry out the NMI Program. No more than 5
percent of appropriated funds would be allowed for
administrative purposes.
Finally, section 3 would repeal the Technology and
Innovation Program (15 U.S.C. 278n), merge the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) Program with the
NMI Program, and set a sunset date for the NMI Program for
December 31, 2024.
Section 4. Report.
Section 4 of the bill would require the Secretary of
Commerce to conduct a survey measuring the economic impact of
China's rare-earth monopoly on the United States and other
affected nations. Within a year of enactment, the Secretary
would submit a report detailing the results of the study and
further include recommendations on initiating direct dialogue
with affected nations and promoting cooperative resolutions.
Section 5. Report on competitiveness of United States in international
trade.
Section 5 would direct the Secretary of Commerce to submit
a report to Congress that evaluates the competitiveness of the
United States in export markets, identifies both domestic and
foreign barriers to increasing exports, and makes
recommendations for legislative action.
Section 6. National strategic plan for advanced manufacturing.
Section 6 would amend the existing reporting requirement in
section 102 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
(42 U.S.C. 6622) by directing the Committee on Technology--
which is under the National Science and Technology Council in
the Office of Science and Technology Policy--to develop every
four years with the National Economic Council a strategic plan
to improve government coordination and long-term guidance for
Federal programs and activities in support of U.S.
manufacturing competitiveness.
Additional Views of Senator Thune
I write separately to note my views regarding S. 1468, the
``Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of
2014,'' which are shared by several of my colleagues. I
appreciate the willingness of Chairman Rockefeller and the
bill's lead sponsors, Senators Brown and Blunt, to engage in
meaningful negotiations regarding the legislation. The
substitute amendment offered by Senator Blunt and adopted at
the Committee's Executive Session reflected bipartisan
negotiations and made several important improvements to the
bill. Among other things, the substitute lowered the
authorization level in the bill by half as compared to the
introduced bill; added a 10-year sunset to the bill's funding
authority; repealed and consolidated two potentially
duplicative programs at the Department of Commerce; and
included additional changes to enhance transparency, improve
oversight, and ensure the contemplated manufacturing centers
can stand on their own in a reasonable time period, without
ongoing federal financial assistance.
This kind of bipartisan give-and-take on legislation has
been characteristic of the Committee's work, and permitted the
bill to be adopted by voice vote during the Executive Session.
Nevertheless, while I believe the bill has been significantly
improved, I continue to have reservations about the
legislation, and I am withholding my final support at this
writing. That being said, I remain committed to working with
the Chairman and other colleagues in an effort to improve it
further before the full Senate votes on the bill as reported
from this Committee.
While I strongly support the goal of increasing advanced
manufacturing in the United States, it is not clear that
additional federal involvement--and taxpayer funding--is really
the missing ingredient needed to spur innovation. Among other
things, it seems probable that the most promising manufacturing
technologies and processes--the ones most likely to compete
effectively for financial assistance under the program
envisioned by the bill--are the same ones that are most likely
to attract private sector or more localized public sector
investments without federal intervention.
I believe as Congress seeks to spur economic growth--
including advanced manufacturing--that meaningful regulatory
reform, tax reform, and enactment of trade promotion authority
could benefit an even greater number of manufacturers than
might benefit under the current bill. As Christina Romer,
former chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic
Advisers, has written: ``Without compelling evidence of special
market failures in manufacturing, it might be better to enact
policies that will make all American businesses and workers
more productive and successful.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\See Christina D. Romer, ``Do Manufacturers Need Special
Treatment?'' The New York Times, February 4, 2012 (emphasis added),
available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/do-
manufacturers-need-special-treatment-economic-view.html. As Ms. Romer
noted, the President raised some of these policies in his 2012 State of
the Union Address, including: ``expansion and enforcement of free trade
agreements; public investment in basic science, infrastructure and
education; and corporate tax reform.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, an open amendment process on the Senate floor
may allow some of these policies that enjoy bipartisan support
to be considered as part of a final legislative package. Along
with an appropriate, mutually agreed upon offset for the new
funding in the bill, such additions would likely increase
support for Senate passage of the measure.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES.
[15 U.S.C. 272]
* * * * * * *
(d) Management Costs.--In carrying out the extramural funding
programs of the Institute, including the programs established
under [sections 25, 26, and 28] sections 25 and 26 of this Act,
the Secretary may retain reasonable amounts of any funds
appropriated pursuant to authorizations for these programs in
order to pay for the Institute's management of these programs.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 10. VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
[15 U.S.C. 278]
* * * * * * *
(h) Annual and Other Reports to Secretary and Congress.--
(1) The Committee shall render an annual report to
the Secretary for submission to the Congress not later
than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the
President's annual budget request in each year. Such
report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily
exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect
the Institute[, including the Program established under
section 28,] or with which the Committee in its
official role as the private sector policy advisor of
the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall
identify areas of research and research techniques of
the Institute of potential importance to the long-term
competitiveness of United States industry, in which the
Institute possesses special competence, which could be
used to assist United States enterprises and United
States industrial joint research and development
ventures. Such report also shall comment on the
programmatic planning document and updates thereto
submitted to Congress by the Director under subsections
(c) and (d) of section 23.
(2) The Committee shall render to the Secretary and
the Congress such additional reports on specific policy
matters as it deems appropriate.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 28. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM.
[15 U.S.C. 278n]
[(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Institute a program linked to the purpose and functions of the
Institute, to be known as the ``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 institutions,
to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in the United
States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of
critical national need.
[(b) External Funding.--
[(1) In general.--The Director shall award
competitive, merit-reviewed grants, cooperative
agreements, or contracts to--
[(A) eligible companies that are small-sized
businesses or medium-sized businesses; or
[(B) joint ventures.
[(2) Single company awards.--No award given to a
single company shall exceed $3,000,000 over 3 years.
[(3) Joint venture awards.--No award given to a joint
venture shall exceed $9,000,000 over 5 years.
[(4) Federal cost share.--The Federal share of a
project funded by an award under the program shall not
be more than 50 percent of total project costs.
[(5) Prohibitions.--Federal funds awarded under this
program may be used only for direct costs and not for
indirect costs, profits, or management fees of a
contractor. Any business that is not a small-sized or
medium-sized business may not receive any funding under
this program.
[(c) Award Criteria.--The Director shall only provide
assistance under this section to an entity--
[(1) whose proposal has scientific and technical
merit and may result in intellectual property vesting
in a United States entity that can commercialize the
technology in a timely manner;
[(2) whose application establishes that the proposed
technology has strong potential to address critical
national needs through transforming the Nation's
capacity to deal with major societal challenges that
are not currently being addressed, and 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
science and technology knowledge base;
[(4) whose proposal explains why Technology
Innovation Program support is necessary, including
evidence that the research will not be conducted within
a reasonable time period in the absence of financial
assistance under this section;
[(5) whose application demonstrates that reasonable
efforts have been made to secure funding from
alternative funding sources and no other alternative
funding sources are reasonably available to support the
proposal; and
[(6) whose application explains the novelty of the
technology and demonstrates that other entities have
not already developed, commercialized, marketed,
distributed, or sold similar technologies.
[(d) Competitions.--The Director shall solicit proposals at
least annually to address areas of critical national need for
high-risk, high-reward projects.
[(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 practice 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 the enactment of this section, the Director shall
promulgate 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 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 within a reasonable time period in
the absence of financial assistance under this section;
and
[(3) providing for appropriate dissemination of
Technology Innovation Program research results.
[(g) Annual Report.--The Director shall submit annually to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House
of Representatives a report describing the Technology
Innovation Program's activities, including a description of the
metrics upon which award funding decisions were made in the
previous fiscal year, any proposed changes to those metrics,
metrics for evaluating the success of ongoing and completed
awards, and an evaluation of ongoing and completed awards. The
first annual report shall include best practices for management
of programs to stimulate high-risk, high-reward research.
[(h) 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 and consistent
with the goals of the Technology Innovation Program.
[(i) Coordination With Other State and Federal Technology
Programs.--In carrying out this section, the Director shall, as
appropriate, coordinate with other senior State and Federal
officials to ensure cooperation and coordination in State and
Federal technology programs and to avoid unnecessary
duplication of efforts.
[(j) 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. Funds accepted
from other Federal agencies shall be included as part of the
Federal cost share of any project funded under this section.
[(k) TIP Advisory Board.--
[(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Institute a TIP Advisory Board.
[(2) Membership.--
[(A) In general.--The TIP Advisory Board
shall consist of 10 members appointed by the
Director, at least 7 of whom 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.
[(B) Term.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C) or (D), the term of office of
each member of the TIP Advisory Board shall be
3 years.
[(C) Classes.--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.
[(D) Vacancies.--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.
[(E) Serving consecutive terms.--Any person
who has completed 2 consecutive full terms of
service on the TIP Advisory Board shall
thereafter be ineligible for appointment during
the 1-year period following the expiration of
the second such term.
[(3) Purpose.--The TIP Advisory Board shall meet not
less than 2 times annually, and provide the Director--
[(A) advice on programs, plans, and policies
of the Technology Innovation Program;
[(B) reviews of the Technology Innovation
Program's efforts to accelerate the research
and development of challenging, high-risk,
high-reward technologies in areas of critical
national need;
[(C) reports on the general health of the
program and its effectiveness in achieving its
legislatively mandated mission; and
[(D) guidance on investment areas that are
appropriate for Technology Innovation Program
funding;
[(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 not later than 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 Congress by the Director under
subsections (c) and (d) of section 23.
[(l) Definitions.--In this section--
[(1) the term ``eligible company'' means a small-
sized or medium-sized business 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;
[(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; 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
intellectual property rights of
United States-owned companies;
[(2) the term ``high-risk, high-reward research''
means research that--
[(A) has the potential for yielding
transformational results with far-ranging or
wide-ranging implications;
[(B) addresses critical national needs within
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's areas of technical competence; and
[(C) is too novel or spans too diverse a
range of disciplines to fare well in the
traditional peer-review process;
[(3) 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);
[(4) 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-sized or
medium-sized business; or
[(ii) at least 1 small-sized or
medium-sized business and 1 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-sized
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
[(5) the term ``TIP Advisory Board'' means the
advisory board established under subsection (k).]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Notwithstanding the repeal of section 28 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), the
Director shall carry out that section as that section was in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, with respect to applications
for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts under that section
submitted before that date.
* * * * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 34. NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.
(a) Establishment of Network for Manufacturing Innovation
Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
establish within the Institute a program to be known as
the ``Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program''
(referred to in this section as the ``Program'').
(2) Purposes of program.--The purposes of the Program
are--
(A) to improve measurably the competitiveness
of United States manufacturing and to increase
domestic production;
(B) to stimulate United States leadership in
advanced manufacturing research, innovation,
and technology that has a strong potential to
generate substantial benefits to the Nation
that extend significantly beyond the direct
return to participants in the Program;
(C) to facilitate the transition of
innovative and transformative technologies into
scalable, cost-effective, and high-performing
manufacturing capabilities;
(D) to facilitate access by manufacturing
enterprises to capital-intensive
infrastructure, including high-performance
computing, in order to improve the speed with
which such enterprises commercialize new
processes and technologies;
(E) to accelerate measurably the development
of an advanced manufacturing workforce;
(F) to facilitate peer exchange of and the
documentation of best practices in addressing
advanced manufacturing challenges; and
(G) to leverage non-Federal sources of
support to promote a stable and sustainable
business model without the need for long-term
Federal funding.
(3) Support.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director, shall carry out the purposes set forth in
paragraph (2) by supporting--
(A) the Network for Manufacturing Innovation
established under subsection (b); and
(B) the establishment of centers for
manufacturing innovation.
(4) Director.--The Secretary shall carry out the
Program through the Director.
(b) Establishment of Network for Manufacturing Innovation.--
(1) In general.--As part of the Program, the
Secretary of Commerce shall establish a network of
centers for manufacturing innovation.
(2) Designation.--The network established under
paragraph (1) shall be known as the ``Network for
Manufacturing Innovation'' (referred to in this section
as the ``Network'').
(c) Centers for Manufacturing Innovation.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a
``center for manufacturing innovation'' is a center
that--
(A) has been established by a person or group
of persons to address challenges in advanced
manufacturing and to assist manufacturers in
retaining or expanding industrial production
and jobs in the United States;
(B) has a predominant focus on a
manufacturing process, novel material, enabling
technology, supply chain integration
methodology, or another relevant aspect of
advanced manufacturing, as determined by the
Secretary, with the potential--
(i) to improve the competitiveness of
United States manufacturing;
(ii) to accelerate non-Federal
investment in advanced manufacturing
production capacity in the United
States;
(iii) to increase measurably the non-
Federal investment in advanced
manufacturing research; and
(iv) to enable the commercial
application of new technologies or
industry-wide manufacturing processes;
and
(C) includes active participation among
representatives from multiple industrial
entities, research universities, community
colleges, and such other entities as the
Secretary considers appropriate, which may
include industry-led consortia, career and
technical education schools, Federal
laboratories, State, local, and tribal
governments, businesses, educational
institutions, and nonprofit organizations.
(2) Activities.--Activities of a center for
manufacturing innovation may include the following:
(A) Research, development, and demonstration
projects, including proof-of-concept
development and prototyping, to reduce the
cost, time, and risk of commercializing new
technologies and improvements in existing
technologies, processes, products, and research
and development of materials to solve pre-
competitive industrial problems with economic
or national security implications.
(B) Development and implementation of
education and training courses, materials, and
programs.
(C) Development of workforce recruitment
programs and initiatives.
(D) Development of innovative methodologies
and practices for supply chain integration and
introduction of new technologies into supply
chains.
(E) Development or updating of industry-led,
shared-vision technology roadmaps for the
development of technologies underpinning next-
generation or transformational innovations.
(F) Outreach and engagement with small- and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, in
addition to large manufacturing enterprises.
(G) Such other activities as the Secretary,
in consultation with Federal departments and
agencies whose missions contribute to or are
affected by advanced manufacturing, considers
consistent with the purposes described in
subsection (a)(2).
(3) Additional centers for manufacturing
innovation.--
(A) In general.--The National Additive
Manufacturing Innovation Institute and
manufacturing centers formally recognized or
under pending interagency review on the date of
enactment of the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 shall
be considered centers for manufacturing
innovation, but such centers shall not receive
any preference for financial assistance under
subsection (d) solely on the basis of being
considered centers for manufacturing innovation
under this paragraph.
(B) Network participation.--A manufacturing
center that is substantially similar to those
established under this subsection but that does
not receive financial assistance under
subsection (d) may, upon request of the center,
be recognized as a center by the Secretary for
purposes of participation in the Network.
(d) Financial Assistance To Establish and Support Centers for
Manufacturing Innovation.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the Program, the
Secretary of Commerce shall award financial assistance
to a person to assist the person in planning,
establishing, or supporting a center for manufacturing
innovation.
(2) Application.--A person seeking financial
assistance under paragraph (1) shall submit to the
Secretary an application therefor at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require. The application shall, at a
minimum, describe the specific sources and amounts of
non-Federal financial support for the center on the
date financial assistance is sought, as well as the
anticipated sources and amounts of non-Federal
financial support during the period for which the
center could be eligible for continued Federal
financial assistance under this section.
(3) Open process.--In soliciting applications for
financial assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall ensure an open process that will allow for the
consideration of all applications relevant to advanced
manufacturing regardless of technology area.
(4) Selection.--
(A) Competitive, merit review.--In awarding
financial assistance under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall use a competitive, merit review
process that includes peer review by a diverse
group of individuals with relevant expertise.
(B) Performance measurement, transparency,
and accountability.--For each award of
financial assistance under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(i) make publicly available at the
time of the award a description of the
bases for the award, including an
explanation of the relative merits of
the winning applicant as compared to
other applications received, if
applicable; and
(ii) develop and implement metrics-
based performance measures to assess
the effectiveness of the activities
funded.
(C) Collaboration.--In awarding financial
assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall, acting through the National Program
Office established under subsection (e)(1),
collaborate with Federal departments and
agencies whose missions contribute to or are
affected by advanced manufacturing.
(D) Considerations.--In selecting a person
who submitted an application under paragraph
(2) for an award of financial assistance under
paragraph (1) the Secretary shall consider, at
a minimum, the following:
(i) The potential of the center for
manufacturing innovation to advance
domestic manufacturing and the
likelihood of economic impact in the
predominant focus areas of the center
for manufacturing innovation.
(ii) The commitment of continued
financial support, advice,
participation, and other contributions
from non-Federal sources, to provide
leverage and resources to promote a
stable and sustainable business model
without the need for long-term Federal
funding.
(iii) Whether the financial support
provided to the center from non-Federal
sources significantly outweighs the
requested Federal financial assistance.
(iv) How the center for manufacturing
innovation will increase the non-
Federal investment in advanced
manufacturing research in the United
States.
(v) How the center for manufacturing
innovation will engage with small- and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises,
to improve the capacity of such
enterprises to commercialize new
processes and technologies.
(vi) How the center for manufacturing
innovation will carry out educational
and workforce activities that meet
industrial needs related to the
predominant focus areas of the center
for manufacturing innovation.
(vii) How the center for
manufacturing innovation will advance
economic competitiveness both globally
and domestically and generate
substantial benefits to the Nation that
extend beyond the direct return to
participants in the Program.
(viii) Whether the predominant focus
of the center for manufacturing
innovation is a manufacturing process,
novel material, enabling technology,
supply chain integration methodology,
or other relevant aspect of advanced
manufacturing that has not already been
commercialized, marketed, distributed,
or sold by another entity.
(ix) How the center for manufacturing
innovation will strengthen and leverage
the assets of a region.
(5) Limitations on awards.--
(A) In general.--No award of financial
assistance may be made under paragraph (1) to a
center of manufacturing innovation after the 7-
year period beginning on the date on which the
Secretary first awards financial assistance to
a center under that paragraph.
(B) Matching funds and weighted
preferences.--The total Federal financial
assistance awarded to a center of manufacturing
innovation, including the financial assistance
under paragraph (1), in a given year shall not
exceed 50 percent of the total funding of the
center in that year. The Secretary may give a
weighted preference to applicants seeking less
than the maximum amount of funding allowed
under this paragraph.
(C) Funding decrease.--The amount of
financial assistance provided to a center of
manufacturing innovation under paragraph (1)
shall decrease after the second year of funding
for a center, and shall continue to decrease
thereafter in each year in which financial
assistance is provided, unless the Secretary
determines that--
(i) the center is otherwise meeting
its stated goals and metrics under this
Act;
(ii) unforeseen circumstances have
altered the center's anticipated
funding; and
(iii) the center can identify future
non-Federal funding sources that would
warrant a temporary exemption from the
limitations established in this
subparagraph.
(D) Award limit.--No more than 15 centers of
manufacturing innovation may receive financial
assistance under paragraph (1) in any single
year.
(e) National Program Office.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
establish, within the Institute, the National Office of
the Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program
(referred to in this section as the ``National Program
Office''), which shall oversee and carry out the
Program.
(2) Functions.--The functions of the National Program
Office are--
(A) to oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of the Program;
(B) to enter into memorandums of
understanding with Federal departments and
agencies, whose missions contribute to or are
affected by advanced manufacturing, to carry
out the purposes described in subsection
(a)(2);
(C) to develop, not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of the Revitalize
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of
2014, and update not less frequently than once
every 2 years thereafter, a strategic plan to
guide the Program;
(D) to establish such procedures, processes,
and criteria as may be necessary and
appropriate to maximize cooperation and
coordinate the activities of the Program with
programs and activities of other Federal
departments and agencies whose missions
contribute to or are affected by advanced
manufacturing;
(E) to establish a clearinghouse of public
information related to the activities of the
Program; and
(F) to act as a convener of the Network.
(3) Recommendations.--In developing and updating the
strategic plan under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary
shall solicit recommendations and advice from a wide
range of stakeholders, including industry, small- and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, research
universities, community colleges, and other relevant
organizations and institutions on an ongoing basis.
(4) Report to congress.--Upon completion, the
Secretary shall transmit the strategic plan required
under paragraph (2)(C) to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the
House of Representatives.
(5) Hollings manufacturing extension partnership.--
The Secretary shall ensure that the National Program
Office incorporates the Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership into Program planning to ensure
that the results of the Program reach small- and
medium-sized entities.
(6) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may
be detailed to the National Program Office without
reimbursement. Such detail shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(f) Reporting and Auditing.--
(1) Annual reports to the secretary.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall require each recipient of financial
assistance under subsection (d)(1) to annually
submit a report to the Secretary that describes
the finances and performance of the center for
manufacturing innovation for which such
assistance was awarded.
(B) Elements.--Each report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) an accounting of expenditures of
amounts awarded to the recipient under
subsection (d)(1); and
(ii) consistent with the metrics-
based performance measures developed
and implemented by the Secretary under
this section, a description of the
performance of the center for
manufacturing innovation with respect
to--
(I) its goals, plans,
financial support, and
accomplishments; and
(II) how the center for
manufacturing innovation has
furthered or failed to meet the
purposes described in
subsection (a)(2).
(2) Annual reports to congress.--
(A) In general.--Not less frequently than
once each year, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress that describes the
performance of the Program during the most
recent 1-year period.
(B) Elements.--Each report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include, for the period
covered by the report--
(i) a summary and assessment of the
reports received by the Secretary under
paragraph (1);
(ii) an accounting of the funds
expended by the Secretary under the
Program, including any temporary
exemptions granted from the
requirements of subsection (d)(5)(C);
(iii) an assessment of the
participation in, and contributions to,
the Network by any centers for
manufacturing innovation not receiving
financial assistance under subsection
(d)(1); and
(iv) an assessment of the Program
with respect to meeting the purposes
described in subsection (a)(2).
(3) Biennial assessment by gao.--
(A) In general.--Not less frequently than
once every 2 years, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to Congress an
assessment of the operation of the Program
during the most recent 2-year period, including
a final report regarding the overall success of
the Program.
(B) Elements.--Each assessment submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall include, for the
period covered by the report--
(i) a review of the management,
coordination, and industry utility of
the Program;
(ii) an assessment of the extent to
which the Program has furthered the
purposes described in subsection
(a)(2);
(iii) such recommendations for
legislative and administrative action
as the Comptroller General considers
appropriate to improve the Program; and
(iv) an assessment as to whether any
prior recommendations for improvement
made by the Comptroller General have
been implemented or adopted.
(g) Additional Authorities.--
(1) Appointment of personnel and contracts.--The
Secretary of Commerce may appoint such personnel and
enter into such contracts, financial assistance
agreements, and other agreements as the Secretary
considers necessary or appropriate to carry out the
Program, including support for research and development
activities involving a center for manufacturing
innovation.
(2) Transfer of funds.--The Secretary may transfer to
other Federal agencies such sums as the Secretary
considers necessary or appropriate to carry out the
Program. No funds so transferred may be used to
reimburse or otherwise pay for the costs of financial
assistance incurred or commitments of financial
assistance made prior to the date of enactment of the
Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of
2014.
(3) Authority of other agencies.--In the event that
the Secretary exercises the authority to transfer funds
to another agency under paragraph (2), such agency may
award and administer, under the same conditions and
constraints applicable to the Secretary, all aspects of
financial assistance awards under this section.
(4) Use of resources.--In furtherance of the purposes
of the Program, the Secretary may use, with the consent
of a covered entity and with or without reimbursement,
the land, services, equipment, personnel, and
facilities of such covered entity.
(5) Acceptance of resources.--In addition to amounts
appropriated to carry out the Program, the Secretary
may accept funds, services, equipment, personnel, and
facilities from any covered entity to carry out the
Program, subject to the same conditions and constraints
otherwise applicable to the Secretary under this
section.
(6) Covered entity.--For purposes of this subsection,
a covered entity is any Federal department, Federal
agency, instrumentality of the United States, State,
local government, tribal government, Territory or
possession of the United States, or of any political
subdivision thereof, or international organization, or
any public or private entity or individual.
(h) Patents.--Chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code,
shall apply to any funding agreement (as defined in section 201
of that title) awarded to new or existing centers for
manufacturing innovation.
(i) Funding.--
(1) Network for manufacturing innovation fund.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established in
the Treasury of the United States a fund to be
known as the ``Network for Manufacturing
Innovation Fund'' (referred to in this
subsection as the ``Fund'').
(B) Elements.--There shall be deposited in
the Fund, which shall constitute the assets of
the Fund, amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available to carry out the Program.
(C) Availability.--Amounts deposited in the
Fund shall be available to the Secretary of
Commerce, at the discretion of the Secretary,
or the Secretary's designee, to carry out the
Program without further appropriation and
without fiscal year limitation.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $300,000,000 to the
Secretary of Commerce to be deposited in the Fund
established under paragraph (1) to carry out this
section.
(3) Administrative expenses.--The Secretary of
Commerce may use not more than 5 percent of the amounts
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2) to pay the
salaries and expenses of those Federal employees in the
National Program Office.
(4) Additional funding sources.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, in addition to any funds
appropriated under paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Commerce may use not more than 10 percent of the funds
of any economic development, manufacturing, or small
business assistance program, except for the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Program, to carry out the
Program established in this section.
(5) Rescission.--There is hereby rescinded, from
appropriated discretionary funds that remain available
for obligation as of the date of the enactment of the
Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of
2014, $300,000,000.
(j) Consolidation of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Consortia (AMTech) Program.--The Secretary is directed to merge
the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
Program, which has not been previously authorized but has been
funded in both fiscal year 2013 and 2014, into the Program
established in this section.
(k) Sunset.--The authority to provide financial assistance to
establish or support a center for manufacturing innovation
under subsection (i) terminates effective December 31, 2024,
but the Program and the Network established under this section
may continue to operate, subject to the availability of
appropriations, if the Secretary determines that the purposes
in subsection (a)(2) are being met.
SEC. [34]35.
[15 U.S.C. 271 note]
This Act may be cited as the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act.
AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
SEC. 102. COORDINATION OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
[42 U.S.C. 6622]
(a) Interagency Committee.--The Director shall establish or
designate a Committee on Technology under the National Science
and Technology Council. The Committee shall be responsible for
planning and coordinating Federal programs and activities in
advanced manufacturing research and development. In furtherance
of the Committee's work, the Committee shall consult with the
National Economic Council.
(b) Responsibilities of Committee.--The Committee shall--
(1) coordinate the advanced manufacturing research
and development programs and activities of the Federal
agencies;
(2) establish goals and priorities for advanced
manufacturing research and development that will
strengthen United States manufacturing;
(3) work with industry organizations, Federal
agencies, and Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers not represented on the Committee, to identify
and reduce regulatory, logistical, and fiscal barriers
within the Federal government and State governments
that inhibit United States manufacturing;
(4) facilitate the transfer of intellectual property
and technology based on federally supported university
research into commercialization and manufacturing;
(5) identify technological, market, or business
challenges that may best be addressed by public-private
partnerships, and are likely to attract both
participation and primary funding from industry;
(6) encourage the formation of public-private
partnerships to respond to those challenges for
transition to United States manufacturing; and
[(7) develop, and update every 5 years, a strategic
plan to guide Federal programs and activities in
support of advanced manufacturing research and
development, which shall--
[(A) specify and prioritize near-term and
long-term research and development objectives,
the anticipated time frame for achieving the
objectives, and the metrics for use in
assessing progress toward the objectives;
[(B) specify the role of each Federal agency
in carrying out or sponsoring research and
development to meet the objectives of the
strategic plan;
[(C) describe how the Federal agencies and
Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers supporting advanced manufacturing
research and development will foster the
transfer of research and development results
into new manufacturing technologies and United
States based manufacturing of new products and
processes for the benefit of society to ensure
national, energy, and economic security;
[(D) describe how Federal agencies and
Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers supporting advanced manufacturing
research and development will strengthen all
levels of manufacturing education and training
programs to ensure an adequate, well-trained
workforce;
[(E) describe how the Federal agencies and
Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers supporting advanced manufacturing
research and development will assist small- and
medium-sized manufacturers in developing and
implementing new products and processes; and
[(F) take into consideration the
recommendations of a wide range of
stakeholders, including representatives from
diverse manufacturing companies, academia, and
other relevant organizations and institutions.]
(7) develop and update a national strategic plan for
advanced manufacturing in accordance with subsection
(c).
[(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit the
strategic plan developed under subsection (b)(7) to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the
House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology,
and shall transmit subsequent updates to those committees as
appropriate.]
(c) National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing.--
(1) In general.--The President shall submit to
Congress, and publish on an Internet website that is
accessible to the public, the strategic plan developed
under paragraph (2).
(2) Development.--The Committee shall develop and
update as required under paragraph (4), in coordination
with the National Economic Council, a strategic plan to
improve Government coordination and provide long-term
guidance for Federal programs and activities in support
of United States manufacturing competitiveness,
including advanced manufacturing research and
development.
(3) Contents.--The strategic plan described in
paragraph (2) shall--
(A) specify and prioritize near-term and
long-term objectives, including research and
development objectives, the anticipated time
frame for achieving the objectives, and the
metrics for use in assessing progress toward
the objectives;
(B) describe the progress made in achieving
the objectives from prior strategic plans,
including a discussion of why specific
objectives were not met;
(C) specify the role, including the programs
and activities, of each relevant Federal agency
in meeting the objectives of the strategic
plan;
(D) describe how the Federal agencies and
Federally funded research and development
centers supporting advanced manufacturing
research and development will foster the
transfer of research and development results
into new manufacturing technologies and United
States based manufacturing of new products and
processes for the benefit of society to ensure
national, energy, and economic security;
(E) describe how such Federal agencies and
centers will strengthen all levels of
manufacturing education and training programs
to ensure an adequate, well-trained workforce;
(F) describe how such Federal agencies and
centers will assist small- and medium-sized
manufacturers in developing and implementing
new products and processes;
(G) analyze factors that impact innovation
and competitiveness for United States advanced
manufacturing, including--
(i) technology transfer and
commercialization activities;
(ii) the adequacy of the national
security industrial base;
(iii) the capabilities of the
domestic manufacturing workforce;
(iv) export opportunities and trade
policies;
(v) financing, investment, and
taxation policies and practices;
(vi) emerging technologies and
markets; and
(vii) advanced manufacturing research
and development undertaken by competing
nations; and
(H) elicit and consider the recommendations
of a wide range of stakeholders, including
representatives from diverse manufacturing
companies, academia, and other relevant
organizations and institutions.
(4) Updates.--Not later than May 1, 2018, and not
less frequently than once every 4 years thereafter, the
President shall submit to Congress, and publish on an
Internet website that is accessible to the public, an
update of the strategic plan submitted under paragraph
(1). Such updates shall be developed in accordance with
the procedures set forth under this subsection.
(5) Requirement to consider strategy in the budget.--
In preparing the budget for a fiscal year under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the President
shall include information regarding the consistency of
the budget with the goals and recommendations included
in the strategic plan developed under this subsection
applying to that fiscal year.
(6) AMP steering committee input.--The Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee of the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology shall provide input, perspective, and
recommendations to assist in the development and
updates of the strategic plan under this subsection.