Order Code 95-30 SPR
Updated July 29, 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Overview
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the
Department of Commerce, was a major player in the Clinton Administration’s strategy
for civilian technology investment. However, the 104th Congress cut funding levels 18%
between FY1995 and FY1997. In FY1998, this trend was temporarily reversed when
the NIST budget increased 20% primarily due to additional financing for construction.
FY1999 appropriations were 5% below the previous year, while FY2000 support
remained constant. In FY2001, the NIST appropriation decreased 6% to $598.3 million
as a result of fewer construction dollars. For FY2002, P.L. 107-77 funds NIST at $674.5
million, 13% above the prior fiscal year. Included in this is a 27% increase in support
for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The Bush Administration’s FY2003
budget requests $577.5 million for NIST, 15% below the current appropriation. While
in-house research and development (R&D) would increase 23%, support for ATP would
decline 35%. Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership would decrease 89%
as the Administration recommends withdrawal of federal funds from those centers in
operation more than 6 years. S. 2778, as reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, would provide $692.2 million for NIST. Internal R&D would increase
3% while financing for ATP and Manufacturing Extension would remain constant.
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. Prior to 1988, the mission of NBS was to develop and maintain
standards and measurement support for scientific investigations, engineering,
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
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 the competitiveness of U.S. industry. The law directs NIST to
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 experienced marked growth as Congress
funded external grant programs — the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) — authorized by P.L. 100-418. However,
the 104th Congress curtailed the expansion of support for NIST and overall funding levels
decreased 18% between FY1995 and FY1997. In FY1998, the NIST budget again
increased as 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). Under P.L. 105-277, NIST received $641.1 million in funding, approximately
5% less than the previous year. For FY2000, P.L. 106-113 provided NIST with $635.8
million after the rescission mandated by law.
The FY2001 appropriations legislation, P.L. 106-553, provided $598.3 million in
support for NIST. The total included $312.6 million for the STRS account (an 11%
increase), $105.1 million for MEP, $145.7 million for ATP (a 2% increase), and $34.9
million for construction.
In his FY2002 budget proposal, President Bush requested $487.5 million in funding
for NIST, 19% less than the FY2001 appropriation. Support for the STRS account would
be $347.3 million; an 11% increase over the previous fiscal year. The MEP would have
been financed at $106.3 million, while ATP was to be suspended pending an evaluation
(although $13 million would be provided to support on-going project commitments).
Construction efforts would be funded at $20.9 million.
H.R. 2500, as first passed by the House, provided $490 million for NIST, an 18%
decrease in support due primarily to an absence of funding for ATP. In-house R&D under
the STRS account would have received $348.6 million (a 12% increase) while funding
for Industrial Technology Services (ITS) would total $119.5 million. Of this amount,
$106.5 million was for the MEP and $13 million was to cover prior commitments under
ATP although the program was to be eliminated. The construction budget totaled $20.9
million.
The initial Senate-passed version of H.R. 2500 funded NIST at $696.5 million, 42%
above the figure contained in the House bill and 16% more than FY2001. Internal R&D
under the STRS account would have received $343.3 million (a 10% increase) while ITS
would be financed at $309.3 million, including $105.1 million for MEP and $204.2

---

CRS-3
million for ATP (40% over the prior fiscal year). The Committee report to accompany
S.1215, the original Senate appropriations bill, states that the ATP activity should be
continued contrary to the President’s budget proposal. Funding for construction at NIST
totaled $43.9 million.
The final legislation, P.L. 107-77 funds NIST at $674.5 million, an increase of 13%
over FY2001. Included in this is $321.1 million for the STRS account (3% above the
previous fiscal year) and $291million for ITS. Of this latter amount, MEP is financed at
$106.5 million and ATP receives $184.5 million, a 27% increase. Construction is funded
at $62.4 million, triple the figure in the budget request and the House bill and almost
twice that of FY2001. (It should be noted that the FY2002 Defense Appropriations Act
added $5 million into the STRS account for cybersecurity activities.)
For FY2003, the Administration has requested $577.5 million for NIST, 15% below
the previous appropriation due primarily to a decrease in support for ATP and MEP.
Funding for the STRS account would increase 23% to $402.2 million. ATP would
receive $107.9 million (35% below FY2002) and the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership would be funded at $12.9 million. The 89% decline in support for MEP is
due to the President’s recommendation that centers operating for more than 6 years do so
without federal financing. Construction activities would be funded at $54.5 million.
S. 2778, as reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would fund
NIST at $692.2 million, an increase of $11.7 million over FY2002. Of this amount,
$336.4 million is for the STRS account (3% more than the previous year), $185.4 million
is to support ATP and $106.6 million is to finance MEP. Funding for ATP and MEP
remains virtually the same as in FY2002. The construction budget would receive $63.8
million.

Table 1. NIST Appropriations, FY2001-FY2003 Request
NIST APPROPRIATION
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
S.2778
(millions of dollars)
P.L.107-77
Budget
Request
Scientific and Technical
312.6
321.1*
402.2
336.4
Research and Services
Industrial
Advanced
145.7
184.5
107.9
185.4
Technology
Technology
Services
Program
Manufacturing
105.1
106.5
12.9
106.6
Extension
Partnership
Subtotal
250.8
291
120.8
292
Construction of Research
34.9
62.4
54.5
63.8
Facilities
Total
598.3
674.5
577.5
692.2
Figures may not add up because of rounding.
*$5 million was added to the STRS account by the FY2002 Defense Appropriations Act
Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS). The NIST in-house R&D
effort, involving approximately 3,300 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support
personnel (plus some 1,200 visiting scientists per year from industry, academia, and other

---

CRS-4
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
collaborative R&D programs in 130 research areas.1 Since 1988, NIST has participated
in over 960 formal Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with industry.
NIST is composed of seven internal research laboratories.2 Much of the research 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. Under the
President’s FY2003 budget request, funding for this in-house research and development
would increase 23% over the previous year (including the $5 million added for
cybersecurity activities by the FY2002 Defense Appropriations Act). The new budget
also includes an additional $5 million to expand homeland security of which $2 million
is to develop “...standards, technology, and practices to improve the safety of buildings,
occupants and emergency first responders; $2 million [is] to increase the security of
infrastructures, including computer systems controlling utilities and building supervisory
control systems; [and] $1 million [is] for the Computer Security Expert Assist Team
(CSEAT) to help federal agencies identify and fix vulnerabilities in their information
systems.”
Industrial Technology Services (ITS). 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 this end, NIST was 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 among industry,
universities, and government laboratories; and to encourage shared risks, accelerated
development, and increased skills.
The Advanced Technology Program provides seed funding, matched by private
sector investment (generally 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.3 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 awards were made in 1991; according
to NIST, 581 projects have been funded. NIST restructured part of ATP to manage
1 Available at the National Institute of Standards and Technology web cite:
[http://www.nist.gov/].
2 These are: Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Physics,
Chemical Science and Technology, Materials Science and Engineering, Building and Fire
Research, and Information Technology.
3 For more information on the ATP, see: CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology Program,
by Wendy H. Schacht.

---

CRS-5
groups of projects in “well-defined” programmatic areas designed for long-range support
which were selected in conjunction with industry. A general competition also continued.
In FY1999, the focused programs were dropped in favor of one competition for all
technologies.
Initial funding for the Advanced Technology Program was $36 million in FY1991.
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 P.L. 105-18 rescinded $7 million of unobligated balances from the FY1997
ATP account of $225 million. Funding for FY1998 again declined to $192.5 million, but
increased 3% to $197.5 million for FY1999. This figure reflected a $6 million rescission
included in the FY1999 appropriations to account for funds originally obligated for
projects that were terminated early and thus available for use in other ATP competitions.
For FY2000, ATP received $142.6 million, a 28% decrease in support.
As required by law, NIST created Regional Centers for the Transfer of
Manufacturing Technology.4 Expanded in 1994 to include the State Technology
Extension Program, and known as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), this
activity is designed 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 were originally made for up to 6 years (now extended as discussed below). Non-
federal sources are required to provide 50% or more of each Center’s capital and costs
during this time period. P.L. 105-309 permits the federal government to support centers
after the 6 years if a positive, independent evaluation is made every two years. Federal
funding is limited to one-third of the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
of the center. Centers offer expertise, needs evaluation, application demonstrations for
new production technologies, training, and information dissemination.
Centers are located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico with approximately 400 regional
offices. NIST also assumed support of the 36 centers originally funded by the Department
of Defense through its Technology Reinvestment Project when funding for this program
was terminated in FY1994. 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, when the original program was expanded,
appropriations for MEP increased to $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 $16.3 million from the
FY1995 appropriation for the MEP. Funding for FY1996 was $80 million and $95
million in FY1997. FY1998 support was $113.5 million. P.L. 105-277 appropriated
$106.8 million for FY1999, a decrease that reflected statutory requirements reducing the
federal financial commitment as centers reach 6 years of operation. FY2000 funding
totaled $104.2 million.
4 For more information on the MEP, see: CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program: An Overview, by Wendy H. Schacht.

---

CRS-6
Construction of Research Facilities. The age of the NIST laboratories
engendered concerns that the facilities were technologically obsolete, preventing state-of-
the-art research. In 1993, a $540 million, 10-year plan to upgrade the lab was endorsed
and between FY1993 and FY1995 approximately $220 million was appropriated for
construction. However, the 104th Congress rescinded $61 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. In FY1998, $95 million was appropriated for construction, while $56.7
million was made available the following year. A portion of this money was combined
with FY2000 funding to build the Advanced Measurement Laboratory.
Issues for Congress
Beginning with the 104th Congress, many Members expressed skepticism over a
“technology policy” based on 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 were key players in the Clinton Administration’s civilian technology
development strategy, and which accounted for over 50% of the FY1995 NIST budget,
were proposed for elimination. However, strong support by the former Administration
led to their continued financing. To date, funding for ATP remains controversial. The
original FY2000, FY2001, and FY2002 appropriations bills as passed by the House did
not contain any financial support for ATP, although the final legislation did fund the
program. The Administration’s FY2003 budget does request funding for ATP, although
at a level 35% below the previous appropriation. However, the budget recommends
suspending federal financing for those manufacturing extension centers that have operated
for more than 6 years.
While much of the legislative debate has focused on ATP and MEP, increases in
spending for the NIST laboratories that perform the research essential to the mission
responsibilities of the agency have tended to remain small: a 3.7% increase between
FY1995 and FY1996, a 3.5% increase in FY1997, no increase for FY1998, and 3.1% for
FY1999. For FY2000, there was a less than 1% increase in support. However, FY2001
appropriations are 11% more than the previous year. The Bush Administration’s FY2002
budget allows for a 3% increase while for the upcoming year (FY2003) the President is
requesting 23% more support for internal R&D activities in NIST. A smaller 3%
increase is contained in S. 2778 as reported to the Senate. It remains to be seen if the
expanded funding for these in-house programs will continue and how this might affect
financing for the extramural efforts such as ATP and MEP. As the second session of the
107th Congress debates the budget, the resulting dispensation of funding for NIST
programs may effect the ways by which the federal government supports technology
development for commercial application.5
5 See: CRS Report 95-50, The Federal Role in Technology Development, by Wendy H. Schacht.

---