95-30 SPR
Updated June 1, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Overview
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Science, Technology, and Medicine Division
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology
Science, Technology, and Medicine Division
Summary
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of
Commerce has been a major player in the Administration’s strategy for civilian
technology investment. However, the 104 Congress curtailed the expansion of th
th
e
NIST budget; overall funding levels declined by 18% between FY1995 and FY1997.
For FY1998, the Administration had proposed support for NIST at $692.5 million. The
amount appropriated by P.L. 105-119 was $677.9 million. Although less than requested,
the funding was 20% above FY1997. This support included $276.9 million for
Scientific and Technical Research and Services ($5 million of which was vetoed by the
President), $192.5 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), $113.5 million
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), and $95 million for construction.
The Administration’s budget request for FY1999 is $715 million, a 6% increase over
the past year. The major portion of the increase reflects a 35% expansion in financing
for ATP. H.R. 1274, as passed by the House on April 24, 1997, would fund NIST at
$620.5 million; S. 1325, as reported to the Senate on May 22, 1998, would support the
agency at $673.1 million in FY1999.
Mission and Background
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau
of Standards (NBS), was established by the NBS Organic Act of 1901 (P.L. 56-177).
NIST is part of the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce. Unlike
most national laboratories, NIST has a mission specified by statute (15 U.S.C. 271-282a),
has its own authorization and appropriation, and is headed by a Senate-confirmed
Presidential appointee (the National Institutes of Health is the only other federal
laboratory complex which shares these characteristics). Prior to 1988, the mission of
NBS was to develop and maintain standards and measurement support for scientific
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce and educational institutions, as
well as to provide technical and advisory services to other government agencies on
scientific and engineering problems.
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418) changed the
name of NBS to NIST, and explicitly charged the agency with providing technical
services to facilitate U.S. industry’s competitiveness objectives. P.L. 100-418 directs
NIST also to perform functions in support of two broad goals: (1) enhancing the
competitiveness of American companies by providing appropriate support for industry’s
development of pre-competitive generic technologies and diffusing government-
developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy; and
(2) providing the measurements, calibrations, and quality assurance techniques which
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety.
NIST Budget
Beginning in FY1991, the NIST budget began marked growth as Congress started
funding external grant programs authorized by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act. However, the 104 Congress curtailed the expansion of the NIST budget, an
th
d
overall funding levels decreased by 18% between FY1995 and FY1997.
The Administration’s FY1998 budget request for NIST was $692.5 million, a 22.5%
increase over FY1997. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement, which served as the basis of
the FY1998 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 84), listed the laboratory as one of the
“protected domestic discretionary priorities.” As such, the budget resolution assumed
NIST funding at the Administration’s proposed FY1998 level. No authorization bill was
enacted for FY1998. However, P.L. 105-119 appropriated $677.9 million (of which $5
million from the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) budget was
vetoed by the President ). While the figure is approximately $15 million less than th
1
e
President’s request, it included construction funding six times that sought by the
Administration. FY1998 funding for the Advanced Technology Program is 12% less that
FY1997, but support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership is up 19% (see Table).
For FY1999, the Administration’s budget proposes $715 million in financing for
NIST, a 6% increase over the previous year. Of this amount, $291.6 million is for
Scientific and Technical Research and Services (including $5.4 million to expand the
Baldrige National Quality Program), $366.7 million is for Industrial Technology Services
(ATP and MEP), and $56.7 million is for construction. The amount requested for the
Advanced Technology Program ($259.9 million) is 35% above the FY1998 level; funding
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership ($106.8 million) would decline by 6%.
n
a

c
i
f
i
t
n
e
i
c
S

e
h
t

f
o

n
o
i
l
l
i
m

5
$

d
e
o
t
e
v

,
y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

o
t
e
v

m
e
t
i

e
n
i
l

s
i
h

r
e
d
n
u

,
t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P
1 The
Technical Research and Services budget that was to be allocated to Montana State University for
research into environmentally sound technology. The President’s message, dated December 1,
1997, stated that: “This program circumvents the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s research selection process and meets no clear agency need.”

---

CRS-3
H.R. 1274, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act,
passed by the House on April 24, 1997, would authorize funding of $620.5 million for the
agency in FY1999. $286.9 million would be provided for laboratory activities and $5.3
million for the Baldrige Quality Awards Program under the STRS account. Industrial
Technology Services (ITS) would receive $261.3 million including $150 million for ATP
and $111.3 million for MEP. Construction would be supported at $67 million. The
Senate authorization bill, S. 1325, as reported to the Senate on May 22, 1998, provides
funding of $673.1 million for NIST programs in FY1999. Of this total, $282.3 million
is for laboratory activities and $5.4 million for the Baldrige effort under Scientific and
Technical Research and Services; $318.4 million is for ITS (of which $204 million is for
ATP and $114.4 million is for MEP); and $67 million is for construction.
NIST APPROPRIATION
FY1997
FY1998
FY1998
FY1999
(millions of dollars)
(req)
(req)
Scientific and Technical Research and
268.0
276.8
276.9*
291.6
Services
Industrial Technology
Advanced
218.0
275.6
192.5
259.9
Services
Technology
Program
Manufacturing
95.0
123.4
113.5
106.8
Extension
Partnership
Subtotal
313.0
399.0
306.0
366.7
Construction of Research Facilities
(16.0)2
16.7
95.0
56.7
Total
565.0
692.5
677.9*
715
* President Clinton vetoed $5 million of this amount on December 1, 1997.
Scientific and Technical Research and Services. The NIST in-house R&D effort,
conducted by approximately 3,300 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support
personnel (plus some 1,200 visiting scientists per year from industry, academia, and other
government agencies), is conducted at laboratories in Maryland and Colorado. A major
emphasis is cooperative research with industry to overcome technical barriers to
commercialization of emerging technologies. NIST participates with U.S. companies in
cooperative research and development programs in nearly 230 research areas. Sinc
3
e
1988, NIST has signed over 650 formal Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (CRADAs) with industry.
2 P.L. 104-208 provides no funding for construction, while rescinding $16 million of
unobligated balances from the same account.
3 U.S. Department of Commerce. Technology Administration. National Institute of
Standards and Technology. Guide to NIST. NIST Special Publication 858. September 1996.
p. 40.

---

CRS-4
NIST is composed of seven internal research laboratories. Much of the researc
4
h
work is focused on measurements, evaluated data, standards, and test methods. NIST sees
these activities as supporting basic “infrastructural technologies” which enable the
development of advanced technologies, and which industry can use to characterize new
materials, monitor production processes, and ensure the quality of new product lines. For
example, NIST’s super-accurate atomic clock is used to calibrate time and frequency
signals critical in electric power grids, communications networks, banking systems, and
satellite navigation systems.
In FY1996, management of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, which
promotes quality concepts in the private sector, was shifted into the STRS account.
Funding for the NIST Quality Program was $3.4 million in FY1995; $2.9 million in
FY1996; and $2.9 million in FY1997. The President requested $5.3 million for FY1998
to allow for expansion into the health care and education arenas. However, P.L. 105-119
provided appropriations of $2.98 million and instructed the agency not to augment the
program at this time. For FY1999, the Administration has proposed funding at $5.4
million. As noted above, both the House and Senate authorization bills include financing
to permit the use of new award categories for health care and education.
Industrial Technology Services. In response to what was perceived as the necessity
of maintaining a strong manufacturing base, Title V of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act (P.L. 100-418) “... significantly expands the role of NIST as the
Government’s lead laboratory in support of U.S. industrial quality and competitiveness.”
To achieve this mission, NIST is given specific technology transfer functions, and several
programs were created including the Advanced Technology Program, Regional Centers
for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology, and State Technology Extension. These
efforts were designed to facilitate industrial activities to utilize advanced process
technology; to promote cooperative ventures between industry, universities, and
government laboratories; and to promote shared risks, accelerated development, and
increased skills.
The Advanced Technology Program provides seed funding, matched by private-
sector investment (of at least 50% of costs), to companies or consortia of universities,
businesses, and government laboratories for development of generic technologies that
have broad application across industries. Awards, based on technical and business merit,
are made for work which is high-risk and past the basic research stage but not yet ready
for commercialization. The first ATP awards were made in 1991; to date, 352 projects
have been funded. NIST restructured part of ATP to manage groups of projects in “well-
defined” programmatic areas designed for long-range support which were selected in
conjunction with industry: information infrastructure for healthcare; tools for DNA
diagnostics; component-based software; computer integrated manufacturing for
electronics; manufacturing composite structures; motor vehicle manufacturing
technology; catalysis and biocatalysis technologies; materials processing for heavy
manufacturing; digital data storage; digital video in information networks; advanced
vapor compression refrigeration systems; advanced manufacturing control systems; and
4 These are: Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Physics,
Chemical Science and Technology, Materials Science and Engineering, Building and Fire
Research, and Information Technology.

---

CRS-5
tissue engineering. A general competition also exists. Initial funding for ATP in FY1991
was $36 million. Further appropriations increased to $48 million in FY1992, $67.9
million in FY1993, and $199.5 million in FY1994. In FY1995 funding expanded
significantly to $431 million; however, P.L. 104-6 rescinded $90 million from this total.
Support declined to $221 million in FY1996 and the FY1997 emergency supplemental
appropriations and rescission bill (P.L. 105-18) rescinded $7 million of unobligated
balances from the FY1997 ATP account of $225 million. Funding for FY1998 is $192.5
million.
H.R. 1274, which authorizes FY1999 ATP funding, requires that award recipients
provide 60% of project costs, limits federal financing to 5 years, and mandates grantees
demonstrate that the project could not be undertaken without federal assistance. The
Senate authorization bill, S. 1325, requires that large companies partner with other firms
(including small businesses) to receive program awards and makes all competitions
general in nature. Despite continued funding, congressional efforts to reduce the deficit,
combined with Republican opposition to direct support for private sector technology
development, have focused debate on whether to eliminate the ATP.5
Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology were established to
transfer expertise and technologies developed under NIST programs to small and mid-
sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms. Funded through cooperative agreements with non-
profit or state and local organizations, competitive awards are made for up to 6 years (now
extended as discussed above). Non-federal sources are required to provide 50% or more
of each Center’s capital and costs. The Centers offer expertise, needs evaluation,
application demonstrations for new production technologies, training, and information
dissemination. The original emphasis on the transfer of leading edge manufacturing
technologies has given way to actual experience, which shows that for the majority of
companies using the Centers, the appropriate production processes were those that have
been proven, not necessarily those that are the most advanced.
There are now centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Since the program was
created in 1989, 78 awards have been made by NIST for extension activities resulting in
the creation of approximately 300 regional offices. It should be noted that the Department
of Defense also funded 36 centers through its Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP)
in FY1994 and FY1995. When the TRP was terminated, NIST took over support for 20
of these programs in FY1996 and is expected to fund the remaining efforts during
FY1997. Appropriations for FY1988 and FY1989 totaled $12.5 million. Further funding
included $11.9 million in FY1991; $15.1 million in FY1992; and $16.9 million in
FY1993. In FY1994, the State Technology Extension Program was combined with this
activity to establish the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) as part of a planned
network, including Manufacturing Outreach Centers, to provide additional assistance to
small and medium sized firms. The FY1994 appropriation for MEP was $30.3 million.
The $90.6 million funding for FY1995 included support for a new program, LINKS, to
tie together federal, state, and local agencies, the private sector, and the manufacturing
outreach institutions through communications and data systems. P.L. 104-19 rescinded
5 For more information on the ATP, see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research
Service. The Advanced Technology Program. CRS Report 95-36 SPR, by Wendy Schacht.
Washington, December 2, 1997.

---

CRS-6
$16.3 million from the FY1995 appropriation for the MEP.6 Funding for FY1996 was
$80 million and $95 million in FY1997. FY1998 support is $113.5 million. The current
NIST appropriations legislation, P.L. 105-119, temporarily lifts the 6-year cap on federal
funding for MEP centers, but requires, for continued funding, a positive evaluation
through independent review every year after the sixth year of operation.
Construction of Research Facilities. NIST has expressed concern that its facilities
have become technologically obsolete, making it difficult, if not impossible, to conduct
the state-of-the-art research needed for advanced technologies. The Gaithersburg,
Maryland site is over 30 years old, and the Boulder, Colorado site over 40. In 1993, the
Clinton Administration and the 103rd Congress endorsed a $540 million, 10 year plan to
upgrade NIST facilities, and Congress appropriated approximately $220 million for
construction between FY1993 and FY1995. However, the 104 Congress rescinded $61
th
million of unobligated funds from the construction account, and recommended a
reassessment of NIST’s long-term facilities needs in light of reduced program and staffing
levels and overall fiscal constraints. While the Administration’s FY1998 budget request
for $16.7 million was intended for critical maintenance and fire and safety upgrades of
NIST facilities, the Congress appropriated $95 million in FY1998 for construction,
renovation, and maintenance.
Issues for the 105 Congress
th

The 104 Congress expressed skepticism that government should pursue
th
a
“technology policy” by providing federal funds to industry for development of pre-
competitive generic technologies. This philosophical shift from previous Congresses,
coupled with pressures to balance the federal budget, led to significant reductions in
funding for NIST. The Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, which have been key players in the Administration’s civilian technology
development strategy (and which accounted for over 50% of the FY1995 NIST budget),
were proposed for elimination. While the final FY1996 and FY1997 appropriations bills
ultimately continued funding for the ATP and MEP (at the insistence of the
Administration), future funding for these programs (especially the ATP) remains
controversial. Meanwhile, funding increases for the NIST labs (not including the Quality
Program) remain small: a 3.7% increase between FY1995 and FY1996, a 3.5% increase
in FY1997, and no increase for FY1998. During the second session of the 105 Congress,
th
debates between Congress and the Administration over downsizing the NIST budget and
redefining the NIST mission will likely be part of a continuing discussion over what role,
if any, the federal government should play in supporting technology development for
commercial application.7
crsphpgw
6 For more information on the MEP, see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research
Service. Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview. CRS Report 97-104
SPR, by Wendy Schacht. Washington, Dec. 9, 1997.
7 See: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Federal Role in
Technology Development. CRS Report 95-50 SPR, by Wendy Schacht. Washington, Jan. 12,
1998. 6 p.

---