Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

March 3, 2021 – October 3, 2022 R46703

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing October 3, 2022
Institutes and Network
John F. Sargent Jr.
Congress maintains a strong interest in the health of U.S. manufacturing due to its central role in
Specialist in Science and
the U.S. economy and national defense. Manufacturing USA is a network of institutes focused on
Technology Policy
facilitating the development and commercialization of emerging manufacturing technologies.

The existing network consists of 16 institutes sponsored by the Departments of Commerce
(DOC), Defense (DOD), and Energy (DOE) and co-funded with private sector partners.

The program traces its roots to President Obama’s FY2013 budget proposal to create a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI) to help accelerate innovation by investing in industrially relevant manufacturing technologies with broad
applications, and to support manufacturing technology commercialization by bridging the gap between the laboratory and the
market. The proposal sought $1 billion in mandatory funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
within the DOC to establish up to 15 NNMI institutes. Congress did not act on the proposal in the 112th Congress. President
Obama renewed his call for an NNMI in his FY2014 budget request, and sought $2.4 billion in FY2015 to establish a
network of 45 institutes over ten years. Congress did not provide the requested funding. In the absence of explicit authority
and dedicated appropriations, the Obama Administration, relying on existing agency authorities and appropriations of DOD
and DOE, began to establish NNMI institutes.
In December 2014, Congress enacted the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI Act), as
Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). The act
directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation program at NIST. The RAMI Act
authorized NIST, DOE, and other agencies to establish institutes, and established a National Office of the Network for
Manufacturing Innovation at NIST to oversee the program and coordinate the network.
Section 1741 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92) amended the RAMI Act. Among
its provisions, the act codified the 2016 rebranding of the program by DOC as the Manufacturing USA program, expanded
the scope of potential technology focus areas for institutes, established required and permissible activities for each institute,
and authorized the designation of “substantially similar” institutes as Manufacturing USA institutes for purposes of
participation in the network. P.L. 116-92 also authorized the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy and other agency heads
(except DOD) to make financial awards of five to seven years in duration to establish Manufacturing USA institutes, and to
renew the awards subject to merit review. Further, P.L. 116-92 eliminated a RAMI Act provision requiring consideration to
be given to whether a proposed institute could function without long-term federal funding and authorized appropriations for
Manufacturing USA institutes and network support through 2030 and for DOE-sponsored institutes through FY2024.
Section 9906(f) of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-283) authorized the establishment of a
Manufacturing USA institute to pursue research in support of the virtualization and automation of maintenance of
semiconductor machinery; the development of new advanced test, assembly, and packaging capabilities; and the development
and deployment of educational and skills training curricula needed to support the industry sector and to ensure the United
States can build and maintain a trusted and predictable talent pipeline. The CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of P.L. 117-167)
amended this authorization to allow for “not more than 3 Manufacturing USA Institutes” and appropriated $500 million in
FY2022 for their establishment and NIST microelectronics research. In addition, the act amended the program’s authorities:
to foster geographic diversity, location in areas with a low per capita income, locations with a high proportion of socially
disadvantaged residents, and locations in small and rural communities; to expand participation of historically Black colleges
and universities, tribal colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, minority business enterprises, and rural-
serving institutions of higher education; and to promote domestic production of technologies developed under the program.
While P.L. 116-92 addressed a variety of issues associated with the Manufacturing USA program, institutes, and network,
Congress might opt to consider a number of other issues. Among these are the appropriate number of institutes; potential
limitations on institute renewals; selection of technology foci for future institutes; the level and type of appropriations to be
made to support the institutes and network; the purpose(s) of the Manufacturing USA network; recognition of institutes as
Manufacturing USA institutes; participation of other institutes in the network; applicability of financial and performance
reporting requirements; establishment of short- and long-term performance goals; the role of the federal government in the
Manufacturing USA program after 2030; and the long-term financial stability of the institutes in the absence of federal
baseline funding.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 33 Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 29

Congressional Research Service

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Introduction
Congress maintains a strong interest in the health of U.S. manufacturing due to its central role in
the economy and national defense. Manufacturing accounts for about 11% of the nation’s gross
domestic product (GDP).1 In 2019, manufacturing enterprises directly employed approximately
12.5 million full-time employees in the United States and indirectly supported millions of
additional jobs in other industries.2 Manufacturers also funded more than 62% of the nation’s
industrial research and development (R&D), providing a foundation for technological innovation
and continued U.S. technological leadership.3 Wages and salaries per full-time equivalent
employee in manufacturing were $72,735 in 2019, compared to $66,778 for employees in all
industries.4 With respect to national defense, the United States depends heavily on its
manufacturing base to produce military weapons, aircraft, ground vehicles, ships, and other
equipment.
Analysts hold divergent views of the health of U.S. manufacturing. Some see the manufacturing
sector as vibrant and healthy. Those holding this view tend to point to, among other things, the
sector’s strong growth in output and productivity. Some also point to what may be an end to the
long-term decline in U.S. manufacturing employment. From its low point of 11.5 million in
March 2010, U.S. manufacturing employment grew to 12.9 million in November 2019 and
remained at about that level until Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related
closures hit the sector in March 2020. (By April 2020, manufacturing employment had dropped to
11.5 million, but it has recovered somewhat, standing at 12.3 million in December 2020.)5
Other analysts, however, believe that the U.S. manufacturing sector is at risk of losing market
share and employment to foreign competitors. Those holding this view express concerns about a
“hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing resulting from the decision of many U.S. manufacturers to
move production activities offshore while retaining selected functions (e.g., design, engineering),
as well as policy and program efforts of other nations to attract and grow manufacturing
companies. U.S. manufacturing employment today remains substantially below its 1970-2000
levels of approximately 16 million to 19 million.6 National security and economic concerns about

1 CRS analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, Gross Domestic Product, Table 14,
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/gdp3q20_3rd_0.xlsx.
2 Table 6.5D (Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Industry), National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&
1921=survey#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey.
3 CRS analysis of data from National Science Foundation, Business Research and Development: 2018, Detailed
Statistical Tables, NSF 21-312, Table 26, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21312/assets/data-tables/tables/nsf21312-
tab026.xlsx.
4 Table 6.6D (Wages and Salaries per Full-Time Equivalent Employee by Industry), National Income and Product
Accounts, BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce, https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&
1921=survey#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey. According to BEA, “Full-time equivalent employees equal the
number of employees on full-time schedules plus the number of employees on part-time schedules converted to a full-
time basis. The number of full-time equivalent employees in each industry is the product of the total number of
employees and the ratio of average weekly hours per employee for all employees to average weekly hours per
employee on full-time schedules. An industry’s full-time equivalent employment will be less than the number of its
employees on full- and part-time schedules, unless it has no part-time employees.” (BEA, “What Are Full-Time
Equivalent Employees?,” https://www.bea.gov/help/faq/368.)
5 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics survey, customized table (all employees,
manufacturing, seasonally adjusted), https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ce.
6 Some manufacturing sector job losses during this period are attributable to the outsourcing of a variety of business
functions (e.g. accounting, legal, information technology, customer service, shipping, logistics).
Congressional Research Service

1

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

China and shortages of domestically produced supplies needed to address the COVID-19 national
emergency have increased attention on U.S. reliance on overseas manufacturing, potential
vulnerabilities in global supply chains, and U.S. technological leadership and industrial
competitiveness. In 2010, China displaced the United States as the largest manufacturing
country,7 and manufacturing output, measured in each country’s local currency adjusted for
inflation, has been growing more slowly in the United States than in China, South Korea,
Germany, and Mexico.8
Heightened concerns about the health of U.S. manufacturing have led some stakeholders and
policymakers to advocate for changes to improve the business environment for domestic
manufacturers. Such changes include reducing tax and regulatory burdens, reforming tort laws,
changing tax rules for companies that engage in offshoring, and enacting domestic content
requirements and “Buy America”-type provisions that prioritize the purchase of American-made
goods when available.9
Other stakeholders and policymakers have aimed to accelerate the advance of U.S. manufacturing
technology to make U.S. manufacturers more competitive internationally. In particular, President
Obama proposed the creation and funding of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
(NNMI), since rebranded as Manufacturing USA (statutorily, the Manufacturing USA program,
which consists of the Manufacturing USA institutes and Manufacturing USA network).
The Manufacturing USA institutes and network are the foci of this report. The report begins with
a discussion of President Obama’s original NNMI proposal and subsequent legislative action. It
then provides a review of the statutory provisions regarding the establishment and operation of
the Manufacturing USA program. The report then identifies the institutes established prior to and
after the passage of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI
Act, P.L. 113-235).10 The report concludes with a discussion of several policy and implementation
issues that continue to face Congress, including the availability of funding, the proper role of the
federal government, and operation and oversight of the Manufacturing USA institutes and
network.
NNMI Proposal and Legislative Action
In February 2012, in his FY2013 budget, President Obama proposed the establishment of the
NNMI, requesting $1 billion in mandatory funding to support the establishment of up to 15
institutes.11 He formally introduced the concept in a speech at a manufacturing facility in Virginia
on March 9, 2012.

7 As measured by output on a value-added basis in current U.S. dollars. (World Economic Forum, “These Are the Top
10 Manufacturing Countries in the World,” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-
exports-economics/.)
8 For more information on global manufacturing trends, see CRS Report R42135, U.S. Manufacturing in International
Perspective, by Marc Levinson.
9 For more information on Buy America and domestic content restrictions, see CRS Report R44850, Buying American:
Protecting U.S. Manufacturing Through the Berry and Kissell Amendments, by Michaela D. Platzer.
10 The RAMI Act was incorporated as Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015.
11 The terms Centers for Manufacturing Innovation, Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, Institutes for Manufacturing
Innovation, and Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes have been used in different contexts to refer to
institutes participating in Manufacturing USA. For consistency, this report uses the term institute to refer to any such
institute.
Congressional Research Service

2

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

During 2012, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO)12 sought
nationwide input from industry, academia, state and local governments, economic development
authorities, industry associations and consortia, private citizens, and other interested parties to
help guide the design of the NNMI. The AMNPO held four regional workshops and published a
Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register inviting public comment on the proposed
NNMI program. The AMNPO used the input gathered from the workshops and the RFI in the
preparation of a January 2013 National Science and Technology Council report, National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design, that sought to provide a
framework for institute competition and operations.13
No legislation to enact the President’s proposal was introduced in the 112th Congress. The
President renewed his call for an NNMI in his FY2014 budget request, again seeking $1 billion in
mandatory funding. During the 113th Congress, the Revitalize American Manufacturing and
Innovation Act—introduced as H.R. 2996 and S. 1468 in August 2013—would have established a
Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The House passed H.R. 2996 in September 2014. The
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 1468 in August 2014.
No further legislative action was taken on either.
President Obama’s FY2015 budget proposal again sought authority and funding to establish the
NNMI. The request was not part of the President’s FY2015 base budget request, but rather a part
of his adjunct $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI) proposal. The
OGSI proposed $2.4 billion in discretionary funding to establish up to 45 NNMI institutes.
Congress did not take legislative action on the OGSI proposal.
In December 2014, nearly three years after President Obama first proposed the establishment of
the NNMI, Congress passed the RAMI Act. President Obama signed the bill into law on
December 16, 2014. The RAMI Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network
for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI)14 program within the Commerce Department’s National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The act included provisions authorizing NIST, the
Department of Energy (DOE), and other agencies to support the establishment of manufacturing
institutes, and providing for the establishment and operation of a network of these institutes. In
September 2016, the Department of Commerce (DOC) rebranded the NMI as “Manufacturing
USA.”15
In December 2019, Section 1741 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(P.L. 116-92) amended the RAMI Act, including revising the statutory name of the program to the
“Manufacturing United States of America Program” or “Manufacturing USA Program” in

12 The AMNPO is a multi-agency activity focused on the coordination of federal manufacturing resources and
programs to foster U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. It currently serves as the National Office of the
Manufacturing USA Network (also referred to as the National Program Office), and is hosted by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. Participating agencies include the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense,
Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and Small Business Administration.
13 Executive Office of the President (EOP), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design, January 2013, http://www.manufacturing.gov/docs/
nnmi_prelim_design.pdf.
14 For clarity, the program is generally referred to in this report as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
or NNMI, though the RAMI Act uses the term Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI).
15 U.S. Department of Commerce, press release, “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Announces
Manufacturing USA: New Brand for National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,” September 12, 2016,
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2016/09/us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-announces-
manufacturing-usa-new.
Congressional Research Service

3

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

alignment with the NMI’s 2016 rebranding.16 The provisions of the RAMI Act, as amended, are
discussed throughout this report.17
The Manufacturing USA program
Program Establishment
The RAMI Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. §278s), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, operating
through the NIST Director, to establish a Manufacturing USA program. The program consists of
Manufacturing USA institutes and a Manufacturing USA network. In addition, the statute directs
the Secretary of Commerce to establish a National Office of the Manufacturing USA Network
(referred to herein as the National Program Office or NPO) to oversee and carry out the program.
Manufacturing USA Institutes
Institute Definition
The act defines a Manufacturing USA institute as one:
 established to address challenges in advanced manufacturing and to assist
manufacturers in retaining or expanding industrial production and jobs in the
United States;
 with a predominant focus on a manufacturing process, novel material, enabling
technology, supply chain integration methodology, or another relevant aspect of
advanced manufacturing;
 with the potential to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, to
accelerate non-federal investment in advanced manufacturing production
capacity in the United States, or to enable the commercial application of new
technologies or industry-wide manufacturing processes;18 and
 which includes active participation among representatives from multiple
industrial entities, research universities, community colleges, and other entities as
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.19
Institute Roles
Manufacturing USA institutes are intended to:
 improve the competitiveness of United States manufacturing and to increase the
production of goods manufactured predominantly within the United States;

16 15 U.S.C. §278s(c)(2).
17 See 15 U.S.C. §278s (Manufacturing USA) for the provisions of the RAMI Act, as amended.
18 The statute identifies several examples of key advanced manufacturing technologies, including nanotechnology,
advanced ceramics, photonics and optics, composites, bio-based and advanced materials, flexible hybrid technologies,
tool development for microelectronics, food manufacturing, superconductors, advanced battery technologies, robotics,
advanced sensors, quantum information science, supply chain water optimization, aeronautics and advanced materials,
and graphene and graphene commercialization.
19 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(1).
Congressional Research Service

4

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 stimulate United States leadership in advanced manufacturing research,
innovation, and technology;
 facilitate the transition of innovative technologies into scalable, cost-effective,
and high-performing manufacturing capabilities;
 facilitate access by manufacturing enterprises to capital-intensive infrastructure,
including high-performance electronics and computing, and the supply chains
that enable these technologies;
 accelerate the development of an advanced manufacturing workforce;
 facilitate peer exchange of and the documentation of best practices in addressing
advanced manufacturing challenges;
 leverage nonfederal sources of support to promote a stable and sustainable
business model without the need for long-term federal funding;
 create and preserve jobs; and
 contribute to the development of regional innovation initiatives across the United
States.20
Institute Activities
The RAMI Act, as amended, authorizes both required and permissible activities of Manufacturing
USA institutes.
Required Activities
Manufacturing USA institutes are required to:
 conduct research, development, and demonstration projects, including proof-of-
concept development and prototyping, to reduce the cost, time, or risk of
commercializing new technologies and improvements in existing technologies,
processes, products, and materials-related R&D to solve precompetitive
industrial problems with economic or national security implications;
 develop and implement education, training, and workforce recruitment courses,
materials, and programs addressing workforce needs through training and
education programs at all appropriate education levels, including programs on
applied engineering;
 develop innovative methodologies and practices for supply chain integration and
introduction of new technologies into supply chains;
 conduct outreach and engagement with small and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises, including women, minority, and veteran owned manufacturing
enterprises, in addition to large manufacturing enterprises; and
 develop roadmaps or leverage existing roadmaps for technology areas being
pursued by that Manufacturing USA institute, taking into account R&D
undertaken at other Manufacturing USA institutes and federal agencies.

20 15 U.S.C. §278s(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service

5

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Permissible Activities
Manufacturing USA institutes may conduct other activities consistent with the program’s
statutory purposes specified in 15 U.S.C. §278s(b)(2).
Institutes Awarded
As of the date of this report, there are 16 Manufacturing USA institutes, including 4 that were
awarded or under competition prior to enactment of the RAMI Act in December 2014, and 12 that
have been awarded since then.21
Pre-RAMI Act Institutes
Prior to passage of the RAMI Act, the Obama Administration relied on regular appropriations and
the existing statutory authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy
(DOE) to establish four Manufacturing USA-like institutes. Three of these institutes were
awarded by DOD:22
 America Makes (National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute),
Youngstown, OH;23
 MxD, Manufacturing x Digital, previously the Digital Manufacturing and Design
Innovation Institute (DMDII), Chicago, IL;24 and
 LIFT, Lightweight Innovations For Tomorrow (Lightweight and Modern Metals
Manufacturing Innovation Institute), Detroit, MI.25
One institute was awarded by DOE:
 PowerAmerica (Next Generation Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation
Institute), Raleigh, NC.26
The RAMI Act, as amended, recognized these institutes as Manufacturing USA institutes for
participation in the network:
the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute and other manufacturing
institutes formally recognized as Manufacturing USA institutes pursuant to Federal law or
executive actions, or under pending interagency review for such recognition as of
December 16, 2014, shall be considered Manufacturing USA institutes for purposes of this
section.27

21 Institute summaries are available for download on the Manufacturing USA website at
https://www.manufacturingusa.com/institutes.
22 The name of each institute as specified for the competition by the sponsoring agency is listed first in each bulleted
item, followed parenthetically by the name assigned the institute by the grantee, followed by the institute’s location.
23 For additional information, see https://americamakes.us.
24 For additional information, see http://dmdii.uilabs.org.
25 For additional information, see http://lift.technology.
26 For additional information, see https://www.poweramericainstitute.org.
27 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(3)(A).
Congressional Research Service

6

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Post-RAMI Act Institutes
Since passage of the RAMI Act, DOD, DOE, and DOC have competed and awarded 12 additional
institutes. As for the pre-RAMI Act institutes, DOD and DOE awarded their additional institutes
under departmental authorities other than those provided by the RAMI Act. DOD has awarded six
institutes since passage of the RAMI Act:
 AIM Photonics, American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics
(Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation), Rochester, NY;28
 NextFlex (Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute), San
Jose, CA;29
 AFFOA, Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (Revolutionary Fibers and
Textiles Manufacturing Innovation Institute), Cambridge, MA;30
 BioFabUSA Institute (Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Manufacturing Innovation
Institute), Manchester, NH;31
 ARM, Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing (Advanced Robotics
Manufacturing Institute), Pittsburgh, PA;32 and
 BioMADE, Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (Bioindustrial
Manufacturing Innovation Institute), St. Paul, MN.33
DOE has awarded five:
 IACMI, Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation
(Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation Institute), Knoxville, TN;34
 CESMII, Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute
(Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Smart Manufacturing: Advanced
Sensors, Controls, Platforms, and Modeling for Manufacturing), Los Angeles,
CA;35
 RAPID, Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment Institute
(Modular Chemical Process Intensification Institute), New York, NY;36
 REMADE, Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions Institute
(Reducing Embodied Energy and Emissions of Manufactured Materials),
Rochester, NY;37 and
 CyManII, Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Cybersecurity
Manufacturing Innovation Institute), San Antonio, TX.38

28 For additional information, see http://www.aimphotonics.com.
29 For additional information, see http://www.nextflex.us.
30 For additional information, see http://www.rle.mit.edu/fabric/.
31 For additional information, see https://www.armiusa.org/.
32 For additional information, see http://www.arminstitute.org.
33 For additional information, see https://ebrc.org/bioindustrial-manufacturing-and-design-ecosystem/.
34 For additional information, see http://iacmi.org.
35 For additional information, see https://www.cesmii.org/.
36 For additional information, see http://processintensification.org.
37 For additional information, see http://www.rit.edu/remade.
38 For additional information, see https://cymanii.org.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

One institute, awarded by DOC, has been established under the authorities provided by the RAMI
Act:
 NIIMBL, National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals,
Newark, DE.39
Figure 1 shows the month and year each Manufacturing USA institute was awarded.
Figure 1. Chronology of Manufacturing USA Institute Awards

Source: Compiled by CRS from various Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, White House, DOD,
DOE, and DOC announcements.
Pathways to Becoming a Manufacturing USA Institute
Under the RAMI Act, as amended, there are three pathways by which an institute can be
designated a Manufacturing USA institute and thus part of the Manufacturing USA network.
Pathway 1
Institutes established under non-RAMI Act authorities as of December 16, 2014, that had been
recognized as Manufacturing USA institutes pursuant to federal law or executive actions, or that
were under pending interagency review for such recognition, are considered Manufacturing USA
institutes.40 Except for NIIMBL, all of the current institutes were designated as Manufacturing
USA institutes through this pathway.
Pathway 2
The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to recognize “substantially similar” institutes as
Manufacturing USA institutes, upon the request of the entity, for purposes of participation in the
Manufacturing USA network.41 Such an institute is not required to meet every element of the
act’s description of an institute42 and must not have received financial assistance under 15 U.S.C.
§278s(e). This pathway, referred to informally as the “alliance pathway,” has not been used as of
the date of this report.
Pathway 3
A Manufacturing USA institute may be established under the authorities granted by the RAMI
Act, as amended.43 This is the pathway used to establish the NIST-sponsored NIIMBL institute.
Sixteen DOD-, DOE-, and DOC-sponsored institutes are thus characterized as Manufacturing
USA institutes and participate in the Manufacturing USA network. One institute—the DOC-

39 For additional information, see http://www.niimbl.org.
40 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(3)(A).
41 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(3)(B).
42 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(1).
43 15 U.S.C. §278s.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14 Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

sponsored institute—is subject to the purposes, activities, and reporting requirements of the
RAMI Act, as amended.
Funding, Selection Considerations, and Performance Metrics and Standards
The requirements of the RAMI Act, as amended, discussed in this section apply to the NIST-
sponsored Manufacturing USA institute; however, it is not clear whether the provisions apply to
the other 15 Manufacturing USA institutes.44
The statute authorizes the heads of federal agencies (except DOD)45 to award financial assistance
for planning, establishing, or supporting a Manufacturing USA institute.46 Initial awards are to be
made for a period of no less than five years and no more than seven years.47 Federal agencies may
renew institute awards, subject to a rigorous merit review; additional funding for the renewal
period is authorized for a period not to exceed the duration of the initial period of the award.48
The act also provides direction for the review regarding performance measurement, transparency,
and accountability.49
Initial awards for the 16 current institutes ranged from approximately $56 million to $110 million
over a period of five to seven years.50 Total initial federal funding for these institutes was
approximately $1.2 billion, with an additional $2.4 billion provided in matching funds by the
non-federal institute partners (see Table 1), for a total of $3.6 billion.51
In making an award under the RAMI Act, as amended, an agency head is required to use a
competitive, merit review process. This review is to be conducted by a diverse group of
individuals with relevant expertise from both the private and public sectors. In making an award,
an agency head is to ensure that the technology focus of an institute does not substantially
duplicate the technology focus of any other Manufacturing USA institute.52

44 The Department of Defense and Department of Energy assert that none of their institutes were established under 15
U.S.C. §278s(e), and thus are not subject to many of the requirements of the RAMI Act, as amended. For conciseness,
this report does not repeat this caveat in each place it may be applicable.
45 For examples of general DOD manufacturing-related authorities, see 10 U.S.C. 4841and 10 U.S.C. 4811.
46 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(1).
47 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(2)(A).
48 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(2)(B).
49 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(5).
50 National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design, the January 2013 document that sought to
provide a framework for the Manufacturing USA program (then the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation),
specified a federal investment range of $70 million to $120 million over a five to seven year period. The federal award
for America Makes, the pilot institute established by DOD in 2012 prior to the publication of this framework, was $56
million. Since then, every institute award has been for $70 million or more for five years (though agencies can
authorize no-cost extensions).
51 CRS analysis of U.S. Government Accountability Office, Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Have
Demonstrated Initial Accomplishments, but Challenges Remain in Measuring Performance and Ensuring
Sustainability, GAO-19-409, May 2019, pp. 12-13, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-409; DOD,
“Manufacturing Technology Program,” https://www.dodmantech.com/Institutes/; DOE, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office, “Advanced Manufacturing,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/research-development-
consortia; NIST, “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Announces Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Institute
Joining Manufacturing USA Network,” https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/12/us-secretary-commerce-
penny-pritzker-announces-biopharmaceutical.
52 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(4).
Congressional Research Service

9

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Table 1. Initial Funding Awards for Manufacturing USA Institutes
Federal, anticipated cost share, and total funding, in millions of dollars
Total
Anticipated
Federal Anticipated
Institute
Sponsor/Institute
Funding Cost Share
Funding
Department of Defense

America Makes
56
85
141
MxD: Digital Manufacturing Institute (formerly Digital Manufacturing and
70
106
176
Design Innovation (DMDI))
Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT)
70
78
148
American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM)
110
503
613
NextFlex, the Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Innovation
75
108
183
Institute
Advanced Function Fabrics of America (AFFOA)
75
242
317
Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing (ARM)
80
173
253
BioFabUSA
80
241
321
Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE)
88
180
268
Department of Energy

PowerAmerica
70
77
146
Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI)
70
95
165
SMART Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CESMI)
70
171
241
Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment (RAPID)
70
109
179
Institute
Reducing EMbodied-energy And Decreasing Emissions (REMADE)
70
70
140
Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CyManII)
70
41
111
National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals
70
129
199
(NIIMBL)
Total, All Manufacturing USA Institutes
1,194
2,408
3.601
Source: Compiled by CRS from Government Accountability Office, Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes
Have Demonstrated Initial Accomplishments, but Challenges Remain in Measuring Performance and Ensuring
Sustainability, GAO-19-409, May 2019, pp. 12-13, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-409; DOD,
“Manufacturing Technology Program,” https://www.dodmantech.com/Institutes/; DOE, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office, “Advanced Manufacturing,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/research-development-
consortia; NIST, “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Announces Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing
Institute Joining Manufacturing USA Network,” https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/12/us-secretary-
commerce-penny-pritzker-announces-biopharmaceutical; AMNPO.
Institute proposals are to be evaluated for selection and for renewal based on the following
considerations:
 the potential of the institute to advance domestic manufacturing and the
likelihood of economic impact, including the creation or preservation of jobs, in
the predominant focus areas of the institute;
Congressional Research Service

10

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 the commitment of continued financial support, advice, participation, and other
contributions from nonfederal sources, to provide leverage and resources to
promote a stable and sustainable business model;
 whether the financial support provided to the institute from nonfederal sources
exceeds the requested federal financial assistance;53
 how the Manufacturing USA institute will increase the nonfederal investment in
advanced manufacturing research in the United States;
 how the institute will engage with small and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises to improve the capacity of such enterprises to commercialize new
processes and technologies and to improve the domestic supply chain;
 how the institute will carry out educational and workforce activities that meet
industrial needs related to the predominant focus areas of the institute;
 how the institute will advance economic competitiveness and generate substantial
benefits to the nation that extend beyond the direct return to participants in the
Manufacturing USA program;
 whether the predominant focus of the institute 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;
 how the institute will strengthen and leverage the industrial, research,
entrepreneurship, and other assets of a region; and
 how the institute will encourage the education and training of veterans and
individuals with disabilities.54
Nonfederal funding must comprise 50% or more of the total amount of funding made available
for the operation and support of the institute. An agency head may waive this requirement in the
case of satellite centers, large capital facilities, equipment purchases, workforce development, or
general operations.55
For each institute award, the sponsoring agency head is to develop metrics to assess the
effectiveness of funded activities in making progress toward the purposes of the Manufacturing
USA program, including its effectiveness in advancing technology readiness levels or
manufacturing readiness levels; establish performance standards for these metrics; and conduct an
assessment of the institute every five years following the initial award until federal financial
assistance is discontinued to confirm whether the institute is meeting the established performance
standards.56 No member of the review may be a political appointee.57

53 DOE did not require nonfederal support to equal or exceed federal funding for CyManII; using authorities other than
those provided under the RAMI Act, as amended, DOE required a 20% cost share instead of a 50% cost share (DOE,
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=88d2bc97-2ef0-4b7a-9c0e-9e7a06e9043e). For more
information on cost sharing requirements, see 2 C.F.R. §200.306 and 2 C.F.R. §910.130.
54 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(4)(C).
55 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(7).
56 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(5).
57 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(4)(B)(i).
Congressional Research Service

11

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

The sponsoring agency head must notify an institute that fails to meet its performance standards
of any deficiencies and provide the institute with one year to correct the deficiencies.58
Manufacturing USA institutes that fail to correct identified deficiencies are not eligible for
renewal and the agency head is to notify the institute of its ineligibility.59
Manufacturing USA Network
In addition to the institutes, the statute establishes a Manufacturing USA network under the
program.60 The network comprises of all Manufacturing USA institutes, as well as other similar
institutes that may be designated such by the Secretary of Commerce at the request of an institute.
Those designated by the Secretary cannot have received funding for their establishment and
support under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §278s(e).61
Network Charter
In December 2016, the Manufacturing USA Interagency Working Group published the Network
Charter of the Manufacturing USA program and revised it in October 2019. The Network Charter
states that the functions of the network are to facilitate intra-network collaboration, fulfilling the
need for an internal information clearinghouse; foster communication between the network and
external stakeholders, serving as an external information clearinghouse for the program; and
sustain, strengthen, and expand the network. The charter also articulates four operating principles
regarding network governance:
 The network supports its member institutes in meeting the goals of the program and
creates a collective impact greater than the sum of constituent parts. Individual
institute governance is the purview of the lead funding agency and respective institute
members. Legislatively mandated reporting on individual institute performance is the
responsibility of the respective lead funding agencies.
 Network governance is a shared responsibility amongst the network membership.
Mechanisms and structures are necessary to collect inputs and needs of key
stakeholders, including those in the private sector.
 Decisions concerning inter-institute issues in the network should be made at the lowest
responsibility level. In resolving issues, there should be a general preference towards
empowering action at the institute level.
 The AMNPO is responsible for supporting network functions. The AMNPO, working
with the lead funding agencies and other participating federal agencies, is also
responsible for reporting to Congress on the Manufacturing USA program and related
institutes.62

58 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(2)(B)(iii).
59 15 U.S.C. §278s(e)(2)(B)(iv).
60 15 U.S.C. §278s(c).
61 15 U.S.C. §278s(d)(3)(B).
62 NIST, Network Manufacturing USA Program, NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 600-4r1, October 2019, p. 3,
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ams/NIST.AMS.600-4r1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Institute Directors Council
In addition, to facilitate cooperation and collaboration among the institutes, the directors of the
Manufacturing USA institutes launched the Institute Directors Council, composed of the directors
of each institute. According to its charter, the council is responsible for:
 promoting collaboration and cooperation among the institutes in support of the
goals of Manufacturing USA;
 facilitating communications and engagement among the institutes and between
the institutes and the federal government;
 encouraging institute activities that leverage the diversity and strengths of the
Manufacturing USA network to collaborate on cross-cutting activities;
 facilitating the institutes’ collaboration with the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program and other established regional assets;
 supporting collaborative efforts on workforce development that provide enhanced
experiential learning opportunities across the network;
 recommending to the network common policies and guidelines for institutes;
 developing best practices and approaches for project calls involving two or more
institutes and supporting as appropriate (with input from the respective project
funding agency) joint project calls by institutes with existing resources;
 appointing committees to advise the council on matters within its mission and to
carry out responsibilities of the council; and
 adopting such other policies and rules and performing such other activities as are
reasonably incidental to the administration and governance of the council.63
Manufacturing USA National Program Office
The statute also establishes a National Office of the Manufacturing USA network (also referred to
as the National Program Office or NPO).64 Any federal agency may detail an employee of the
federal government to the NPO without reimbursement.65
The office is responsible for:
 overseeing planning, management, and coordination of the Manufacturing USA
program;
 coordinating with federal agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected
by advanced manufacturing;
 preparing a strategic plan for the program at least once every three years;
 establishing procedures, processes, and criteria to maximize cooperation and
coordinate program activities with those of other federal agencies;
 establishing a clearinghouse of public information related to the program;
 convening the Manufacturing USA network;

63 NIST, Charter of the Institute Directors Council Manufacturing USA, NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 600-1,
November 2016, pp. 1-2, http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ams/NIST.AMS.600-1.pdf.
64 The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO), hosted by NIST, serves as the National Office of
the Manufacturing USA Network.
65 15 U.S.C. §278s(h)(6).
Congressional Research Service

13

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 working with federal agencies to explore and develop options for sponsoring or
supporting a Manufacturing USA institute;
 working with federal agencies currently sponsoring or supporting a
Manufacturing USA institute to develop and implement network-wide
performance goals with measurable targets and timelines;
 helping develop pilot programs for implementation by institutes to address
specific purposes of the program, including accelerating technology transfer and
developing entrepreneurship programs;
 supporting the institutes’ workforce development activities;
 identifying and disseminating best practices for workforce education and training
across the network and enhancing collaboration among Manufacturing USA
institutes in the development and implementation of such practices;
 collaborating with the Departments of Labor and Education, industry, career and
technical education schools, local community colleges, universities, and labor
organizations to provide input for the development of national certifications for
advanced manufacturing workforce skills in the technology areas of the
Manufacturing USA institutes; and
 coordinating with Manufacturing USA institutes to develop best practices for the
membership agreements and coordination of similar project solicitations.66
Among the activities of the National Program Office is the provision of secure online
collaboration services. The NPO created collaboration websites for each institute that expressed
an interest, in addition to establishing network sites open to all institutes for cross-institute teams.
The two active formal teams are (1) Communications and (2) Education and Workforce
Development. The NPO uses these collaboration sites as a repository for best practice content and
materials.
The NPO initially convened the network twice a year, hosting one of the two meetings at an
institute and the other meeting in the Washington, DC, area (either at NIST or at the National
Academies). These meetings were followed by a congressional briefing and a Congressional
Manufacturing USA expo. Network meetings moved to an annual event based on agency request,
with 2019 at the National Academies; the 2020 meeting was cancelled and the 2021 meeting was
held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Grants to Certain Manufacturing USA Institutes for Public Service
Activities
The original RAMI Act (incorporated in P.L. 113-235) prohibited the Department of Commerce
from providing funding to Manufacturing USA institutes other than those established under the
act. P.L. 116-92 provided the Secretary of Commerce the authority to award competitive grants
for public service activities to Manufacturing USA institutes that do not receive funding under 15
U.S.C. §278s(e) (i.e., all the current institutes except NIIMBL). Grants for public service
activities may be awarded to carry out workforce development, outreach to small and medium-
sized manufacturers, and other activities the Secretary determines to be in the national interest
and which are unlikely to receive private sector financial support.67

66 15 U.S.C. §278s(h)(2).
67 15 U.S.C. §278s(f).
Congressional Research Service

14

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Under this provision, Commerce awarded $3.4 million in grants to support the COVID-19
pandemic response, using funding provided under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) enacted in March 2020. Awards were made to expand
production of medical countermeasure components (America Makes, $1.4 million); to train
workers in the Pittsburgh and Detroit areas in computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine
operations, industrial technology maintenance, welding, and robotics (LIFT, $1 million); to
develop a safe method to use collaborative robots to automate much of the COVID-19 testing
process (ARM, $600,000); and to develop and share a road map for organizations to follow for
pandemic response and recovery (ARMI/BioFab USA, $400,000).68 Following passage of the
American Rescue Plan in 2021, NIST awarded an additional $54 million to eight non-Commerce
sponsored institutes for pandemic response projects using this mechanism.69
The public service activities grant authority may serve as a useful tool in facilitating inter-institute
cooperation—in areas such as workforce development, research and development, technology
transfer, and manufacturing cluster development—as appropriations are provided.
Coordination with the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program
The RAMI Act, as amended, requires the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the National
Program Office leverages the capabilities of the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program to meet the goals of the program. In particular, the Secretary is to
ensure engagement of small- and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) in Manufacturing USA
institutes and the availability of technical assistance to facilitate the deployment of the
technologies developed by the institutes. In this regard, the Secretary is authorized to provide
financial assistance to MEP centers to support the Manufacturing USA program by providing
support services for SMMs and assistance with workforce development and technology transfer,
among other things.70
In particular, the conference report accompanying the FY2020 National Defense Authorization
Act noted:
the importance of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program in providing
education, guidance, and technical assistance to strengthen the cybersecurity of small- and
medium-sized manufacturers that provide goods or services in the supply chain for the
Department of Defense and encourage the Secretary of Defense to continue work with this
program to strengthen the industrial base.71

68 NIST, “Commerce Funds Manufacturing USA Pandemic Response Projects,” press release, July 6, 2020,
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/07/commerce-funds-manufacturing-usa-pandemic-response-projects.
“BioFabUSA has been initiated as a Manufacturing USA [Manufacturing Innovation Institute] (MII) and will be
sustained by the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI), a non-profit organization located in
Manchester, New Hampshire.” (BioFabUSA, “About Us,” https://www.armiusa.org/about-us.)
69 NIST, “Commerce Department Awards $54 Million in American Rescue Act Grants to Increase Access to Advanced
Manufacturing Opportunities,” press release, February 28, 2022, https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/
commerce-department-awards-54-million-american-rescue-act-grants-increase.
70 15 U.S.C. §278s(h)(5).
71 H.Rept. 116-333.
Congressional Research Service

15

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Reporting Requirements
The RAMI Act, as amended, requires a number of reports.
 Each federal agency financially supporting a Manufacturing USA institute under
15 U.S.C. 278s(e) is required to report annually to the Secretary of Commerce on
the finances and performance of the institute(s). The report is to include an
accounting of expenditures of amounts awarded to each institute and a
description of the performance of each institute with respect to its goals, plans,
financial support, and accomplishments, as well as describing how the institute
has furthered the purposes of the program.72
 The Secretary of Commerce is required to report annually to Congress on the
performance of the institutes. This report is to assess how the program is meeting
its statutory objectives and provide an accounting of funds. The report is also to
include information on any waivers made for matching funding, as well as an
assessment of the contributions to the program by Manufacturing USA institutes
not funded under the statute.73
 The Comptroller General of the United States is to produce a triennial report to
Congress through 2030 with an assessment of the program’s management,
coordination, and industry utility and the extent to which the program has
furthered its statutory objectives. In addition, the report is to provide
recommendations for legislative and administrative actions to improve the
program and provide an assessment of the program’s adoption of prior
recommendations.74
 The Comptroller General is to provide to Congress a final assessment of the
overall success of the program by December 31, 2030.75
Additional Program-Related Authorities
Other provisions of the RAMI Act, as amended, authorize:
 the Secretary of Commerce to 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
R&D activities involving an institute;
 the Secretary of Commerce to transfer to other federal agencies such sums as the
Secretary considers necessary or appropriate to carry out the program—however,
such funds may not 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 RAMI Act;

72 15 U.S.C. §278s(i)(1). The Department of Defense and Department of Energy are not required to submit reports
under this requirement as they assert that none of their institutes were established under 15 U.S.C. §278s(e).
73 15 U.S.C. §278s(i)(2). The most recent report is the Manufacturing USA: Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2019,
November 2020, https://www.manufacturingusa.com/sites/manufacturingusa.com/files/2021-01/
Manufacturing%20USA%20Annual%20ReportToCongress%20FY2019%20final.pdf.
74 15 U.S.C. §278s(i)(3)(A) and (B). Based on the December 20, 2019, enactment date of P.L. 116-92, the first triennial
report is due in late 2022 or early 2023.
75 15 U.S.C. §278s(i)(3)(C).
Congressional Research Service

16

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 agencies to accept funds transferred to them by the Secretary of Commerce, in
accordance with the provisions of the RAMI Act, to award and administer, under
the same conditions and constraints applicable to the Secretary, all aspects of
financial assistance awards under the RAMI Act;
 the Secretary of Commerce to use, with the consent of a covered entity76 and with
or without reimbursement, land, services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of
such covered entity; and
 the Secretary of Commerce to collaborate with other federal agencies to identify
and leverage existing resources at those agencies to assist Manufacturing USA
institutes in carrying out the purposes of the program. In particular, the statute
specifies collaborative activities at:
 the Department of Labor, relating to labor and apprenticeships;
 the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
relating to regional innovation, such as the Regional Innovation Strategies
program;
 the Department of Education relating to workforce development, education,
training, and retraining;
 the Department of Defense relating to procurement and other authorities of
the Department of Defense;
 the Food and Drug Administration relating to biopharmaceutical
manufacturing;
 the National Science Foundation, including the Advanced Technological
Education program;
 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to procurement,
workforce development, education, training, and retraining;
 the Department of Energy relating to development of clean energy
technologies and other authorities of DOE; and
 the Department of Agriculture relating to outreach to rural communities.77
In addition, the RAMI Act, as amended, authorizes collaboration with other federal programs that
the Secretary determines to be appropriate for supporting the activities of Manufacturing USA
institutes.78
The RAMI Act, as amended, also specifies that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. Chapter 18, Patent
Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance, shall apply to any funding agreement79
awarded to new or existing institutes. This chapter of the U.S. Code is widely known as the Bayh-
Dole Act and is formally titled the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980.

76 For purposes of this provision, 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.
77 15 U.S.C. § 278s(j).
78 15 U.S.C. § 278s(j)(7)(J).
79 As defined in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Section 201, the term “funding agreement” means “any contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency, other than the Tennessee Valley Authority, and any
contractor for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work funded in whole or in part by the
Federal Government. Such term includes any assignment, substitution of parties, or subcontract of any type entered into
for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under a funding agreement as herein defined.”
Congressional Research Service

17

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Authorization of Appropriations
The RAMI Act, as amended, authorized appropriations of $5 million for the NIST Industrial
Technical Services account for FY2015 through FY2019, and amounts as may be necessary for
FY2020 through FY2030, to carry out the Manufacturing USA program. It also authorizes
appropriations of $70 million for the Department of Energy to carry out the program for FY2020
through FY2022, and $84 million for FY2023 and FY2024.
Manufacturing USA-Related Provisions in the 2021 NDAA and in
the CHIPS and Science Act
Section 9906(f) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (2021 NDAA, P.L. 116-283) authorized the establishment of a Manufacturing
USA institute to pursue research in support of the virtualization and automation of maintenance of
semiconductor machinery; the development of new advanced test, assembly, and packaging
capabilities; and the development and deployment of educational and skills training curricula
needed to support the industry sector and to ensure the United States can build and maintain a
trusted and predictable talent pipeline. The CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of the CHIPS and
Science Act, P.L. 117-167) amended the 2021 NDAA authorization to allow for “not more than 3
[semiconductor-focused] Manufacturing USA Institutes” and appropriated $500 million in
FY2022 for their establishment, together with NIST microelectronics research. In addition, the
act also appropriates funding of $2.0 billion in FY 2023, $1.3 billion in FY2024, $1.1 billion in
FY2025, and $1.6 billion in FY2026 for CHIPS R&D programs (sections 9906 (c), (d), (e), and
(f) of P.L. 116-283), including Manufacturing USA.
In addition, P.L. 117-167 amended Manufacturing USA’s authorities to:
 give special consideration to Manufacturing USA institute proposals that
contribute to geographic diversity or locations in areas with a low per capita
income, a high proportion of socially disadvantaged residents, and small and
rural communities;
 develop preferences for proposals that integrate participation of one or more
covered entities (i.e., historically Black colleges and universities, tribal colleges
and universities, minority-serving institutions, minority business enterprises, and
rural-serving institutions of higher education); and
 promote domestic production of technologies developed under the program by,
among other things:
 measures to partner domestic developers of goods, services, or technologies
by Manufacturing USA Network activities with domestic manufacturers and
sources of financing;
 measures to develop and provide incentives to promote transfer of
intellectual property and goods, services, or technologies developed by
Manufacturing USA Network activities to domestic manufacturers;
 measures to assist with supplier scouting and other supply chain
development, including use of the MEP program to carry out such measures;
 a process to review and approve or deny membership in a Manufacturing
USA institute by foreign-owned entities, especially from countries of
concern, including China; and
Congressional Research Service

18

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 measures to prioritize federal procurement of goods, services, or technologies
developed by the Manufacturing USA Network activities from domestic
sources, as appropriate.80
The act also establishes a Council for Coordination of Institutes consisting of heads of any
Manufacturing USA institute receiving federal funding at any time to foster collaboration
between Manufacturing USA institutes. The purpose of the Council is to assist the National
Program Office in carrying out its statutory functions.81
Issues for Congressional Oversight of the
Manufacturing USA Program
While the RAMI Act, as amended, establishes the Manufacturing USA program, and sets forth its
purposes, structure, authorizations, and operation, a number of issues remain that Congress might
opt to consider as the program is implemented.
Purposes and Activities of the Manufacturing USA Network
The concept of a network of institutes working in cooperation, collaborating, and sharing best
practices has been a central tenet of Manufacturing USA from the beginning, embodied in
President Obama’s proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, in the National
Science and Technology Committee report National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A
Preliminary Design, in the RAMI Act’s direction to establish a Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NMI), and in the FY2020 NDAA’s direction to establish a Manufacturing USA
network.
Though the RAMI Act, as amended, requires the Secretary of Commerce to “establish a network
of Manufacturing USA institutes,” it does not specify the purpose(s) or required activities of the
network. The authorities given the National Program Office offer some insight into congressional
intent for the network. Specifically, the act directs the NPO to, among other things:
 work with sponsoring agencies to develop and implement network-wide
performance goals with measurable targets and timelines, and
 identify and disseminate best practices for workforce education and training
across the network and further enhance collaboration among Manufacturing USA
institutes in developing and implementing such practices.
Congress may opt to consider providing additional authorities or guidance with respect to the
network’s purposes and activities.
Number of Institutes, Technology Foci, and Appropriations
When President Obama first put forth the concept for what has become the Manufacturing USA
program, he sought $1 billion in mandatory funding to support an initial network of 15 institutes,
later proposing a mature network goal of 45 institutes in 10 years. In his FY2015 budget request,
President Obama sought $2.4 billion in discretionary funding to establish up to 45 institutes.

80 P.L. 117-167, Division B, Title II, Subtitle E.
81 Ibid. The National Program Offices’ statutory functions are listed in 15 U.S.C. 278s(h)(2).
Congressional Research Service

19

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Today there are 16 Manufacturing USA institutes funded by DOD, DOE, and NIST using funds
from discretionary appropriations. DOD and DOE have relied upon their other existing
authorities to establish their institutes. As initially conceived and articulated in National Network
for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design, the technology focus of each institute was
to be defined by the proposing teams, and driven by the needs of industry, the opportunities
created by new technologies, and the programmatic needs of the federal partners.82
To date, 15 of the 16 institutes (all but the NIST-sponsored NIIMBL) have been funded by
mission agencies. Because these agencies relied on existing authorities and general
appropriations, the technology focus for each competition was identified by the agency based on
their agencies’ immediate and near-term needs, in contrast to being selected by proposers based
on industrial needs and technological opportunity. This approach departs from the original
concept and fundamentally changes the criteria by which the technology foci are chosen,
potentially resulting in outcomes less relevant to U.S. industrial technology leadership and
competitiveness. With respect to the remaining institute, NIIMBL, NIST ran an open competition
(i.e., without a pre-selected technology focus).83
Moving forward, among the topics Congress may opt to consider are:
 How many additional institutes, if any, should be established? How should the
technology focus of each be determined?
In addition to the 16 existing Manufacturing USA institutes, Congress has directed NIST
to establish up to three Manufacturing USA institutes focused on semiconductor
manufacturing.84 More generally, the original NMMI proposal in the FY2015 budget was
for 45 institutes. China has closely followed Manufacturing USA and has opened 21
manufacturing institutes, with plans to establish 40 by 2025 despite lockdowns related to
COVID-19. Congress may opt to consider whether the current number of institutes is
adequate to meet the goals of the program and whether additional centers should be
established.
 What criteria should be used in determining the technology foci of new institutes?
All but one of the current institutes’ technology foci were determined by the sponsoring
agency. Congress could allow agencies to select the technology foci of new institutes; it
could mandate the establishment of institutes with particular technology foci (such as the
mandated new institute(s) on semiconductor manufacturing); or it could direct, as it did in
the case of the NIST institute, that the technology foci of institutes be put forth by
proposers in open competitions. Alternatively, Congress could continue to use a
combination of these approaches. Congress could also provide guidance to agencies on
the criteria to be used in selecting the technology foci of institutes, such as meeting
industrial needs, exploiting emerging technological opportunities, addressing global
competitiveness challenges, and supporting agency missions such as national security and
energy efficiency.

82 National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design, Advanced Manufacturing National Program
Office, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, January 2013.
83 “A proposed Institute in any area of advanced manufacturing will be considered so long as it does not duplicate the
technical scope and programs of existing federally funded [Manufacturing USA] Institutes.” (NIST, “Announcement of
Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO), National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) Institute Awards,”
http://nist.gov/amo/upload/NNMI2016FFO.pdf.)
84 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021(P.L. 116-283), as amended by the CHIPS and Science Act
(P.L. 117-167). For more information on semiconductor manufacturing, see CRS Report R46581, Semiconductors:
U.S. Industry, Global Competition, and Federal Policy, by Michaela D. Platzer, John F. Sargent Jr., and Karen M.
Sutter.
Congressional Research Service

20

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

 What funding approaches and mechanisms should be used to establish new
institutes and to support the renewal of existing institutes?
Existing institutes have been funded through annual discretionary appropriations.
President Obama originally proposed a single mandatory $1 billion appropriation to fund
15 institutes, then proposed a $2.4 billion discretionary appropriation to establish up to 45
institutes. The use of annual appropriations may provide greater congressional control
and direction to agencies in the establishment and oversight of new and existing
institutes. However, federal agencies often are given discretion in the use of annual
appropriations, and a presidential administration might opt to use such funding for other
priorities.85 A single appropriations account dedicated to supporting Manufacturing USA
institutes, funded through a one-time advance appropriation, might reduce funding
uncertainties.86 While such an appropriation might be made to a single agency for
operation of the program and funding of institutes, Congress could mandate a joint
agency approach in the determination of technology foci, selection of institutes, and
management of the network.
 Should there be any limit on the number of times an institute’s award may
be renewed?
The RAMI Act directed that consideration be given to whether a proposed
institute could function without long-term federal funding. Under P.L. 116-92,
this provision was removed and a provision was added for the renewal of
funding, subject to a rigorous merit review. No limit was set on the number of
renewals an institute could receive. Congress could opt to consider whether to set
a limit on the number of renewals an institute is eligible to receive or require
increased cost sharing over time.
Recognition as a Manufacturing USA Institute, Network
Participation, and Reporting Requirements
The RAMI Act, as amended, provides three pathways for recognition of institutes and, by
extension, membership in the Manufacturing USA network. Currently, all 16 DOD-, DOE-, and
NIST-sponsored institutes are recognized as Manufacturing USA institutes and participate in the
network. However, some assert that the DOD and DOE institutes, by virtue of their establishment
under non-RAMI Act authorities, can opt whether to identify as Manufacturing USA institutes
and participate in the network.87 This may create uncertainties about the composition and stability
of the network, potentially reducing the network’s efficacy.
In addition, some assert that the DOD- and DOE-sponsored institutes are not subject to various
requirements placed upon Manufacturing USA institutes under the RAMI Act, as amended,
including the act’s provisions regarding required activities, performance measurement,
transparency, and accountability, as well as obligations related to financial and performance

85 For example, President Trump requested no funding for DOE Manufacturing USA institutes in his FY2021 budget
request. (Department of Energy, Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3 Part 1, p.
168, February 2020, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/doe-fy2021-budget-volume-3-part-1.pdf.)
86 For more information on advance appropriations, see CRS Report R43482, Advance Appropriations, Forward
Funding, and Advance Funding: Concepts, Practice, and Budget Process Considerations, by Jessica Tollestrup and
Kate P. McClanahan.
87 The exception is America Makes (previously the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute), as the
RAMI Act, as amended, specifically identifies it as a Manufacturing USA institute. The NIST-sponsored NIIMBL
institute was established under the authorities of the RAMI Act, as amended, and is therefore designated as a
Manufacturing USA institute.
Congressional Research Service

21

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

reporting to the Secretary of Commerce. The absence of a harmonized approach to financial
accounting and performance measurement may impede the ability of the Comptroller General, the
National Academies, and Congress to assess the effectiveness of the institutes and the network.
If Congress intends the DOD- and DOE-sponsored institutes to be permanently recognized as
Manufacturing USA institutes; participants in the network; and accountable to the required
activities, performance measurement, transparency, accountability, and financial and performance
reporting requirements of the RAMI Act, as amended, it may opt to provide additional statutory
clarity.
Establishment of Performance Goals: Long-Term and Short-Term
In its May 2019 assessment of the Manufacturing USA program, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that the National Program Office and institute-sponsoring agencies have
established “long-term goals and objectives based on the statutory purposes of the Manufacturing
USA program and have also developed initial performance measures for the network” but noted
that they have not “developed near-term network-wide performance goals with measurable targets
and time frames that would demonstrate the progress over time of the Manufacturing USA
program.” While the NPO sets goals and associated performance metrics for institutes established
under the RAMI authority, there is no authority for it to do so for institutes established by
agencies using non-RAMI authorities. The NPO reports goals and detailed performance metrics
only for institutes established under RAMI authorities. If Congress seeks goals and performance
measures for all institutes, it may opt to use its oversight authority to explore these limitations and
to consider statutory changes to require such reporting of all institutes.
The Role of the Federal Government After FY2030
The RAMI Act, as amended, provides authorization of appropriations to NIST for Manufacturing
USA through FY2030, and requires the Comptroller General of the United States to make a final
assessment of the overall success of the program by December 31, 2030. No specifications are
made in the act for a federal role after 2030. As the program progresses, Congress may opt to
consider whether to continue the Manufacturing USA program beyond FY2030 or to allow it to
expire.
Institute Financial Sustainability
An ongoing question related to the Manufacturing USA institutes is their ability to become
financially self-sustaining. As some of the first institutes were approaching the end of their initial
funding awards, the amendments to the RAMI Act under the FY2020 NDAA authorized the
agencies to renew institute awards subject to merit review. In addition, the act eliminated a RAMI
Act provision requiring consideration be given to whether a proposed institute could function
without long-term federal funding.
In its 2019 evaluation of the Manufacturing USA program, GAO noted that each of the institutes
had undertaken sustainability planning at varying levels of detail and with a focus on different
revenue-generating activities. Among the various revenue-generating activities identified were the
use of existing or planned facilities to enable members to conduct research and to test new
technology and new manufacturing processes; organizing industry gatherings; providing
consulting services for manufacturing technology transition and commercialization; developing
manufacturing and business solutions that could be licensed for a fee; hosting education and
workforce trainings; and developing fee-based workforce training curricula and skills
Congressional Research Service

22

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

certifications. The institutes’ strategies also included revenue from public and private contracts
competed for on an individual project basis, including with the federal government.88
In its report, GAO noted that institutes articulated both positive and negative aspects associated
with the potential end of federal baseline funding.
On the positive side, institutes noted that the end of federal baseline funding (and accompanying
obligations) would alleviate delays caused by government review and allow more outreach to
international companies. While opening institutes to wider international participation might
provide increased revenues, potentially help U.S. companies sell in overseas markets, and
increase U.S. manufacturing companies’ adoption of new technologies, the institutes also voiced
concerns that taking on additional international companies as members “could divert their
institutes’ focus away from increasing U.S. competitiveness” and that such members might take
an institute’s knowledge outside the United States.89
The institutes also noted other downsides, including the possible need to “focus more on short-
term research projects for private industry use rather than projects that advance the manufacturing
innovation ecosystem as a whole,” and decreased resources to maintain leading edge technical
capabilities and to provide support for workforce education and training.90
Congress may opt to consider whether the concerns expressed by the institutes regarding the
implications potentially associated with an elimination of federal baseline funding might detract
from or undermine the ability of the Manufacturing USA program to achieve its intended
purposes. Congress might explore approaches to eliminating or decreasing such potential adverse
effects and to identify mechanisms and approaches that might increase the ability of institutes to
become financially viable over time.
Is There a Need for the Manufacturing USA
Program?
While the RAMI Act included a number of findings highlighting the role manufacturing plays in
the U.S. economy, it did not identify specific shortcomings of the U.S. manufacturing sector that
the Manufacturing USA program is to address. Just as analysts hold divergent views of the health
of U.S. manufacturing, some may be supportive of the Manufacturing USA program while others
may question whether there is a compelling national need for it.
Some analysts view the U.S. manufacturing sector as vibrant and healthy without a need for the
Manufacturing USA program. Those holding this view tend to point to, among other things, the
sector’s strong growth in output and productivity, as well as the United States’ substantial share
(17.4%) of global manufacturing value-added (second only to China, 22.4%).91 As noted in the
introduction, between March 2010 and November 2019, manufacturing employment added
approximately 1.4 million jobs, growing to 12.9 million, where it remained until COVID-19-
related closures hit in March 2020.92 Many analysts attribute the previous long-term trend in U.S.

88 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Have Demonstrated Initial
Accomplishments, but Challenges Remain in Measuring Performance and Ensuring Sustainability, GAO-19-409, May
2019, pp. 40-41.
89 Ibid., p. 43.
90 Ibid., pp. 42-43.
91 MAPI, https://www.mapi.net/china-has-dominant-share-world-manufacturing.
92 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Current Employment Statistics survey database, data for
manufacturing employment, all employees, seasonally adjusted, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost.
Congressional Research Service

23

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

manufacturing employment losses to broader global technology and business trends, such as
technology-driven productivity improvements, increases in capital-labor substitution, movement
of labor-intensive production activities to lower-wage regions of the world, foreign competition in
manufactured goods in both U.S. and foreign markets, and disaggregation of work processes
resulting in the contracting of service work previously performed by employees of manufacturing
firms as well as the offshoring of manufacturing activities.
Some analysts have argued that long-term employment losses in manufacturing are inevitable and
that federal policy should focus elsewhere. In a July 2014 Wall Street Journal article, former
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers argued that “the economic challenge of the future will not
be producing enough. It will be providing enough good jobs.” Summers described the loss of
manufacturing jobs over the long-term as “inexorable and nearly universal,” a result of
technology and market forces mirroring the earlier loss of agricultural jobs, only this “change will
come faster and affect a much larger share of the economy.” Summers did not offer a prescriptive
alternative, but rather stated the need for government policies and approaches that “meet the
needs of the information age.”93
From these perspectives, some analysts may conclude that the Manufacturing USA program is
either unnecessary or counter to inexorable trends.
Other analysts believe that the U.S. manufacturing sector is at risk of losing market share and
employment to foreign competitors, and that the Manufacturing USA program can strengthen
U.S. manufacturing. Concerns expressed by those holding this view include the following:
 a “hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing resulting from the decision of many
U.S. manufacturers to move production activities and other corporate functions
(e.g., research and development, accounting, information technology, tax
planning, legal research) offshore;
 focused efforts by China and other nations to grow the size, diversity, and
technological prowess of their manufacturing capabilities and to attract
manufacturing operations of U.S.-headquartered multinational companies using a
variety of policy tools (e.g., tax holidays, worker training incentives, market
access, and access to rare earth minerals);
 concerns about the vulnerability of manufacturing supply chains outside the
United States—especially for critical supplies such as pharmaceuticals and
semiconductors—to disruptions in the event of a trade dispute, pandemic, or
military conflict and to other risks such as product tampering and intellectual
property theft; and
 a decades-long declining trend in U.S. manufacturing employment, punctuated
by a steeper drop from 2001 to 2010. In March 2010, U.S. manufacturing
employment fell to its lowest level (11.5 million) since March 1941, down more
than 41% from its peak of 19.6 million in June 1979.94
Some analysts assert that outside the Manufacturing USA program the federal government
provides little support for manufacturing-focused U.S. based R&D activities. According to these
analysts, such funding is scattered among multiple agencies and “has rarely been a priority for
any of them.” This position contends that U.S. academia, in general, does not incentivize

93 Lawrence Summers, “Lawrence H. Summers on the Economic Challenge of the Future: Jobs,” Wall Street Journal,
July 7, 2014.
94 See, for example, CRS Report R41898, Job Creation in the Manufacturing Revival, by Marc Levinson.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30 Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

engineering advances and practical problem solving. Instead, the emphasis on “engineering as a
science” in U.S. academic engineering programs focuses on “originality and breakthroughs.”95
In support of President Obama’s original proposal for a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI), the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington, DC-
based think tank, asserted that an NNMI-like program would address two issues important to U.S.
manufacturing competitiveness: technology and talent. It also argued that spillovers from
successful innovations resulting from a firm’s investments could yield substantial benefits
captured by competitors, producing a market failure that results in underinvestment in
manufacturing R&D and innovation. Further, the report cited other types of market failures—for
example, the need for large-scale capital investments and training outlays that may require many
years to pay off—that may “limit the scale-up of innovative manufacturing processes, the
installation of new capital equipment, and the full integration of manufacturing systems across
supply chains.”96
China’s Made in China 2025 national industrial strategy proposed a $300 billion investment in
advanced manufacturing over five years in support of its short term goal of becoming more self-
sufficient in manufacturing in industries such as aerospace, computer chips, robotics,
pharmaceuticals, and electric vehicles, and its long-term goal of becoming the global
manufacturing and innovation leader by 2049.97 In pursuit of these goals, China launched its
program in 2016 with the goal of establishing 40 manufacturing innovation institutes by 2025.98
By the end of 2020, China had established 21 institutes (see Table 2). The technology focus areas
of most of the Chinese manufacturing institutes mirror those of the Manufacturing USA institutes,
while the balance are based on priorities articulated in Made in China 2025. Investments in these
institutes has been estimated to be between 10 and 200 times the level of U.S. funding provided
for the Manufacturing USA institutes. According to NIST, China’s advanced manufacturing goals
are to increase “the Chinese domestic content of core materials to 40% by 2020 and 70% by
2025,” and to provide support for indigenous innovation and intellectual property; domestic
brands; secure, controllable standards; and localization of production and data.99

95 Quotations from David M. Hart, Stephen J. Ezell, and Robert D. Atkinson, Why America Needs a National Network
for Manufacturing Innovation, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, December 2012,
http://www.itif.org/publications/why-america-needs-national-network-manufacturing-innovation.
96 David M. Hart, Stephen Ezell, Robert D. Atkinson, Why America Needs a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, December 2012.
97 Made in China 2025 is a highly detailed 10-year “guide for China’s manufacturing strategy” to “transform China into
the global manufacturing leader before the centennial of the founding of New China.” The report identifies scores of
principles, policies, and programs China believes will enable the achievement of the goals outlined in the report.
98 NIST, presentation by NIST Office of Advanced Manufacturing Director Mike Molnar to the NIST Visiting
Committee on Advanced Technology, Manufacturing USA: An Update on Program Status, Congressional
Reauthorization and Key 2020 Initiatives, February 12, 2020, https://www.nist.gov/document/manufacturing-usa-
current-status-and-future-plans.
99 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

25

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Table 2. China Manufacturing Institutes
Center
Location
Established Focus
Power Battery Manufacturing
Beijing
2016
Batteries for cars, scooters, buses,
Innovation Center

etc.
The National Institute of Additive
Xi’an, 31 regional
2016
Metals, polymers and composites,
Manufacturing
centers
ceramics, and construction (direct
jetting of concrete and polymers).
The National Information
Wuhan
2017
Optoelectronics industry innovation
Optoelectronics Innovation Center
platform; next-generation networks,
data center optical interconnects,
and 5G; core chip technology and
advanced package integration.
National Printing and Flexible
Guangdong
2018
High resolution, very large, active
Display Innovation Center
matrix organic LED displays.
The National Integrated Circuit and
Shanghai
2018
Five nanometer and below
Intelligent Sensor Innovation Center
integrated circuits.
National Robot Innovation Center
Shenyang,
2018
Integrated national robotic industry
Liaoning; Harbin,
innovation base.
Heilongjiang
National Innovation Institute of
Wuhan
2018
CRS unable to identify any specific
Digital Design and Manufacturing
foci of this institute.
Lightweight Materials Technology
Beijing
2018
CRS unable to identify any specific
Institute
foci of this institute.
Smart Sensor Innovation Center
Jiading District,
2018
Sensor design integration; advanced
Shanghai
manufacturing, packaging, and testing
processes; materials; processes;
devices; and Internet of Things
application solutions.
National Advanced Rail
Changsha, Hunan
2019
Green energy, multi-energy hybrid
Transportation Equipment
drives, new energy storage systems,
Innovation Center
high efficiency drive systems and
permanent magnet motor electric
drives.
National Intelligent Connected
Huairou District,
2019
Cross-vehicle, cross-communication
Vehicle Innovation Center
Beijing
terminals, cross-chip modules, cross-
security platform interconnection
application demonstrations, and
technology roadmaps,
National Agriculture Machine
Luoyang, Henan
2019
CRS unable to identify any specific
Innovation Center
foci of this institute.
National Advanced Functional Fiber
Shanghai
2019
Nanofibers, polyamide fiber, big data,
Innovation Center
intelligent manufacturing, flame
retardant and functional fiber
polymerization and spinning.
National Rare Earth Functional
Jiangxi and Inner
2020
Rare earth magnet, luminescence,
Materials Innovation Center
Mongolia
catalyst, alloy, and other functional
materials, as well as resource
recycling and utilization.
National Integrated Circuit
Shanghai suburb,
2020
Advanced packaging and system
Characteristic Process and Packaging Jiangsu province
integration.
Test Innovation Center
Congressional Research Service

26

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

Center
Location
Established Focus
National High Performance Medical
Shenzhen
2020
High-performance medical devices
Device Innovation Center
for prevention, diagnosis, treatment
and rehabilitation.
Silicon-Based Heterogenous
Chongqing
2021
Silicon-based optoelectronics,
Integration National Innovation
heterogeneous 3d integration,
Center
germanium, and silicon radio
frequency, based on the positioning
of high-end process development
and col aborative product design.
National 5G Medium and High
Shenzhen,
2021
New semiconductor materials and
Frequency Device Innovation Center Guangdong
processes; 5G medium and high
frequency core devices, and terminal
RF front-end and silicon-based
mil imeter-wave integrated chips.
National Glass New Material
Bengbu, Anhui
2021
Information display glass, new energy
Innovation Center
glass, energy-saving and
environmentally friendly glass, glass
material for nuclear industry, optical
glass, and “special glass” (hol ow
glass beads, neutral medicinal glass).
20. National High-end Intelligent
Qingdao,
2021
Intelligent household appliances
Household Appliances Innovation
Shandong
industry through the development of
Center
“smart” technology and security.
21. National Intel igent Voice
Hefei, Anhui
2021
Multilingual speech recognition,
Innovation Center
speech synthesis, semantic
understanding and dedicated artificial
intelligence speech chips.
Source: CRS analysis of NIST, “NIST Update: Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology” presentation by
Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Walter G. Copan, October 28,
2019, https://www.nist.gov/document/1copan-v21pdf; Donghua University, “Party Secretary Liu Chenggong
Conducts Investigation in Suzhou to Deepen Cooperation,” September 11, 2020, http://english.dhu.edu.cn/22/a6/
c5367a271014/pagem.htm; China Legislation Standard, “China Sets Up National Innovation Center of Rare Earth
Functional Materials,” August 4, 2020, http://www.cnstandards.net/index.php/china-sets-up-national-innovation-
center-of-rare-earth-functional-materials; Ourjiangsu, “Jiangsu Unveils Second National Manufacturing Innovation
Center,” May 11, 2020, http://www.ourjiangsu.com/a/20200511/1589166687536.shtml; National Advanced
Functional Fiber Innovation Center, “Advanced Functional Fiber Innovation Center Participated in the Online
Campus Job Fair for the Chemical Fiber Industry,” http://www.naffic.cn/en/centernews; China’s Industry, “National
High-Performance Medical Device Innovation Center Settled in Guangdong,” May 16, 2020,
http://www.chinasindustry.com/240.html; Teller Report, “National Advanced Rail Transit Equipment Innovation
Center Unveiled in Zhuzhou, Hunan,” November 5, 2020, https://www.tellerreport.com/business/2020-11-05-
national-advanced-rail-transit-equipment-innovation-center-unveiled-in-zhuzhou—hunan-chinanews-
com.S1gVzPzWtv.html; Lingzhi Technology, “The National Intelligent Sensor Innovation Center settled in
Shanghai,” August 17, 2018, http://en.lingzhitech.com/698.html; iMedia, “The Third Generation of
Semiconductors Is Booming. Why Does Sic Substrate Become the Key to Development?,” https://min.news/en/
economy/89e8261fa1b72880a2e31ab0d33051bc.html; https://www.hatchip.com/ (information was retrieved from
this site in January 2022, but it became non-functional as of March 2022); https://www.icagm.com/index.html;
http://www.haiermake.com; https://www.iflytek.com/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

27

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

What Is the Appropriate Role of the Federal
Government in Manufacturing?
Independent of their perspective on the health of the U.S. manufacturing sector, some analysts
and policymakers may believe that there should not be a Manufacturing USA program because it
is not an appropriate role for the federal government. The appropriate role of the federal
government in fostering technological innovation or supporting a particular company, industry, or
industrial sector (e.g., manufacturing) has been the focus of a long-running national policy
debate. Views range from those who believe that the federal government should take a hands-off
or minimalist approach to those who support targeted federal investments in promising
technologies, companies, and industries. While there has been broad agreement on federal
support for fundamental research, the consensus in favor of federal support frays as technology
matures toward commercialization.
Advocates for a strong federal role in advancing technologies and industries often assert that such
interventions are justified by the economic, national security, and societal benefits that generally
accompany technological advancement and U.S. technological and industrial leadership. For such
reasons, the manufacturing sector has received the attention of the federal government since the
nation’s founding.100
Critics of a strong federal role provide a variety of arguments. For example, some contend that
the federal government should not favor or subsidize particular companies, industries, or
technologies, asserting that such interventions skew technology development and competition by
replacing the decisions of companies, capital providers, and researchers with the judgment of
government officials (sometimes referred to as the government “picking winners and losers”).
Those who hold this view generally assert that this may result in inefficient allocation of capital,
development and deployment of inferior technologies, and political favoritism (sometimes
referred to as “crony capitalism”). Others assert that such interventions often represent a transfer
of wealth from taxpayers to already-prosperous companies and their shareholders (sometimes
referred to as “corporate welfare”).
Some critics may assert that the role envisioned for the Manufacturing USA program should be
performed by the private sector; that Manufacturing USA would be ineffective or
counterproductive; that the funds that would go to Manufacturing USA should be used instead to
support manufacturing in other ways; that the funds should be used for different federal functions
altogether; or that the funds should be directed toward deficit reduction.
Others may prefer an approach that is more technology- or industry-neutral, such as reducing
costs and other burdens on manufacturers by reducing taxes and regulations.
Even some advocates of a strong federal role in supporting U.S. manufacturing may prefer
alternative approaches, including increasing federal funding for manufacturing R&D, providing

100 For example, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” and to
establish a patent system, functions central to manufacturing and trade in manufactured goods. In 1791, Treasury
Secretary Alexander Hamilton presented his “Report on the Subject of Manufactures” to Congress with policy
recommendations to foster the development of manufacturing in the United States. The Morrill Land-Grant Acts
enacted in the 1860s granted states federal lands to use for the establishment of colleges “to teach such branches of
learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts” to provide, in part, knowledgeable engineers and
technicians for the manufacturing sector. A century later, Congress created programs such as the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership and the Small Business Innovation Research program to help improve U.S. innovation and
manufacturing in response to increased foreign innovation and competition.
Congressional Research Service

28

Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and Network

grants and loan guarantees for domestic manufacturing, or subsidizing production of products for
which there are positive benefits for the nation that cannot be captured by the manufacturer.
Some may question whether additional federal funding would produce more innovation and
whether and how the U.S. manufacturing base would effectively absorb such innovations.
When considered in the context of the overall U.S. economy, manufacturing output, or federal
spending, the scale of Manufacturing USA program may seem relatively small. Nevertheless,
both proponents and opponents of Manufacturing USA may see the current program as opening
the door to future increases in funding for Manufacturing USA as well as establishing a precedent
for the creation of additional programs of a similar nature for manufacturing or other sectors of
the U.S. economy.

Author Information

John F. Sargent Jr.

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46703 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED
29

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Oct. 3, 2022

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Sep. 23, 2022

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Mar. 3, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata