<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41065.wais]
NIST'S FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:
WHAT ARE THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY
INVESTMENTS TO PROMOTE
U.S. INNOVATION AND
COMPETITIVENESS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-065 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chairman
JIM MATHESON, Utah PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CHARLIE A. WILSON, Ohio JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
MIKE ROSS, Arizona PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
LAURA RICHARDSON, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director
RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Democratic Professional Staff Member
COLIN MCCORMICK Democratic Professional Staff Member
TIND SHEPPER RYEN Republican Professional Staff Member
PIPER LARGENT Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 11, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative David Wu, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. James M. Turner, Acting Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 26
Dr. James W. Serum, Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology; President, Scitek Ventures LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 34
Dr. Mary L. Good, George W. Donaghey Professor and Dean, Donaghey
College of Engineering and Information Technology, University
of Arkansas, Little Rock
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 40
Dr. Peter S. Fiske, Vice President for Research and Development,
PAX Scientific, Inc.; Co-Founder, RAPT Industries, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 44
Mr. Michael J. Coast, President and CEO, Michigan Manufacturing
Technology Center; President, American Small Manufacturers
Coalition
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 47
Discussion....................................................... 48
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. James M. Turner, Acting Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.......... 54
Dr. James W. Serum, Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology; President, Scitek Ventures LLC..................... 60
Dr. Mary L. Good, George W. Donaghey Professor and Dean, Donaghey
College of Engineering and Information Technology, University
of Arkansas, Little Rock....................................... 64
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Success Stories from the Field submitted by Mr. Michael J. Coast,
President and CEO, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center;
President, American Small Manufacturers Coalition.............. 66
Michigan Client List submitted by Mr. Michael J. Coast, President
and CEO, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; President,
American Small Manufacturers Coalition......................... 86
Comments on NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP) by Robert D.
``Skip'' Rung, President and Executive Director, Oregon
Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI)............ 97
NIST'S FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST: WHAT ARE THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY
INVESTMENTS TO PROMOTE U.S. INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS?
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NIST's FY 2009 Budget Request:
What Are the Right Technology
Investments to Promote
U.S. Innovation and
Competitiveness?
tuesday, march 11, 2008
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology will hold
a hearing to consider the President's fiscal year 2009 (FY09) budget
request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
An Administration witness will review the proposed budget in the
context of the President's overall priorities for NIST. In addition,
there will be four witnesses who will comment on the budget request,
NIST's strategic plans, and the future direction of the agency.
2. Witnesses
Dr. James Turner, Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Dr. James Serum, Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology
Dr. Mary Good, Founding Dean, George W. Donaghey College of Engineering
and Information Technology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock,
Little Rock, AR
Dr. Peter Fiske, Vice President for Research and Development, PAX
Scientific, Inc.
Mr. Michael Coast, President, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center;
Chairman of the Board, American Small Manufacturers Coalition
3. NIST Overview
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-
regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce. Founded in 1901,
NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. NIST helps U.S. industry, workers, and consumers by
ensuring that technical standards are used in a way that creates a
level playing field for global trade, rather than a barrier to
commerce.
NIST operates research facilities at Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder,
CO, and radio stations located at Kauai, HI, and Fort Collins, CO. NIST
has partnerships with and personnel located at the Hollings Marine Labs
in Charleston, SC, the JILA joint institute in Boulder, CO (operated
jointly with the University of Colorado), and the Center for Advanced
Research in Biotechnology (CARB) in Rockville, MD (operated jointly
with the University of Maryland).
NIST employs approximately 2,800 scientists, engineers,
technicians, and support personnel. NIST also hosts approximately 2,600
research associates and facility users from academia, industry, and
other government laboratories. NIST partners with about 1,600
manufacturing specialists and staff at affiliated centers around the
country. In recent years, NIST staff members have earned three Nobel
Prizes, the National Medal of Science, a MacArthur Fellowship, the
L'Oreal-UNESCO Women in Science Award, and numerous other honors.
NIST operates four major cooperative programs to carry out its
mission:
<bullet> NIST laboratories and user facilities. NIST's
internal laboratories conduct basic and applied research in a
wide array of fields to support the U.S. technology
infrastructure. This research focuses on developing tools to
measure, evaluate and standardize, which enable U.S. companies
to innovate and remain competitive. NIST's user facilities
provide industry, academic and government researchers with
access to advanced technical equipment for research and
development.
<bullet> Baldrige National Quality Program. The Baldrige
program promotes excellence among U.S. manufacturers, service
companies, educational institutions, health care providers, and
non-profit organizations by conducting outreach programs and
managing the annual Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
recognizing performance excellence and quality.
<bullet> Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The MEP program
offers services in business and process improvements to
modernize the operations of small- and medium-sized
manufacturers and enhance their competitiveness. MEP
distributes its services through a nationwide network of local
centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, which receive equal
funding from federal sources, State and local sources, and fees
charged for services.
<bullet> Technology Innovation Program. The TIP (formerly the
Advanced Technology Program) supports and accelerates the
development of high-risk, innovative technologies that promise
broad benefits for the Nation by awarding cost-shared grants to
small- and medium-sized companies, and to joint ventures
between industry, academia, non-profit research institutes and
national laboratories.
NIST Legislative Background
On April 17, 2007, Reps. David Wu and Phil Gingrey introduced H.R.
1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of
2007, with bipartisan co-sponsorship. H.R. 1868 authorized
appropriations for NIST's programs in fiscal years 2008 through 2010
(see Table 1). The authorization levels placed the overall NIST budget
on a ten-year path to doubling. Within this envelope, the bill doubled
NIST's laboratories over ten years, doubled the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) over ten years, replaced the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) with the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and provided
funding for $40 million in new TIP awards per year, and funded the
completion of existing laboratory construction projects.
H.R. 1868 also required NIST to deliver a three-year programmatic
planning document to Congress with the annual budget request. This
document must address all of NIST's programs. NIST's external
industrial advisory committee, the Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology (VCAT), is directed to comment on the document in its annual
report.
H.R. 1868 was reported unanimously by the Committee on Science and
Technology on April 30 and passed the House on May 3 by a vote of 385-
23. It was subsequently incorporated into H.R. 2272, the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), which became law on August 9, 2007.
NIST Program Details
The NIST laboratories are comprised of seven labs and a technical
program, and are funded under the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services (STRS) account.
<bullet> Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) works to
improve quality and productivity in the U.S. construction
industry and reduce loss of life and property damage from
fires, earthquakes, wind, and other hazards, by studying
building materials and fire safety engineering.
<bullet> Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL)
conducts research in measurement science and develops the
chemical, biochemical, and chemical engineering measurements,
data, models, and reference standards necessary for enhancing
the competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry, and
improving public health, safety and environmental quality.
<bullet> Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory
(EEEL) provides the technical basis for all electrical
measurements in the U.S.
<bullet> Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) conducts
research and develops test methods and standards for emerging
and rapidly changing information technologies, focusing on
technologies that will improve the usability, reliability and
security of computers and computer networks for work and home
use.
<bullet> Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) develops
measurement methods, standards and technologies to enhance U.S.
manufacturing capabilities and to improve manufacturing
efficiency and productivity.
<bullet> Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL)
researches materials that are needed by industry sectors
including microelectronics, automobiles, and health care.
<bullet> Physics Laboratory (PL) provides measurement services
and research for electronic, optical, atomic and radiation
technology. PL also maintains the NIST F-1 atomic clock, the
primary frequency standard in the United States.
<bullet> Technology Services (TS) provides support for NIST
programs to calibrate industry equipment, to sell standard
reference materials, to train foreign technical standards
officials, to accredit private testing laboratories, and other
technical standards services.
In addition, the STRS account funds the Baldrige National Quality
Program (described above) and NIST's two national research facilities.
<bullet> NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) provides
facilities for outside researchers to study the structure and
dynamics of a wide range of materials. This facility is used
heavily by industry. In fiscal year 2007, researchers from 59
U.S. companies, 40 national labs, and 137 U.S. universities
conducted research at the facility in collaboration with NIST
staff.
<bullet> Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST)
leverages the unique capabilities of the NIST Advanced
Measurement Laboratory complex, providing state-of-the-art
facilities for nanomanufacturing and nanometrology where
industry, universities, and other federal laboratories can
collaborate in solving critical measurement and fabrication
issues that are necessary to convert nanoscale science and
technology research into usable commercial products.
NIST also manages two programs that support small businesses, which
are funded under the Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account.
<bullet> The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is the
only federal program that specifically targets small- and
medium-sized manufacturers to help them modernize their
operations, improve their competitiveness, and reduce or
reverse job losses. A proven public/private partnership, MEP
operates a network of 59 centers in all 50 states and Puerto
Rico, whose mission is to improve the competitiveness of small-
and medium-sized manufacturers. The centers are funded through
equal contributions from federal sources, State and local
sources, and fees for service. Clients who used MEP services in
fiscal year 2006 reported that they created or retained over
52,000 jobs, increased or retained sales of $6.8 billion,
leveraged $1.7 billion in new private-sector investment, and
generated cost savings of $1.1 billion.
<bullet> The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) was created
by the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) to replace the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP). TIP's purpose is to support,
promote, and accelerate innovation in the United States through
high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national
need. Through private/public partnerships, TIP's early-stage
investments will accelerate the development of high-risk,
broadly enabling technologies and help bridge the gap between
the laboratory and the market place. Through September 2007,
TIP's predecessor, ATP, co-funded 824 projects with 1,581
participants. Eighty percent of single-applicant ATP awards
were made to small businesses (fewer than 500 employees) while
more than 170 different colleges and universities have
participated in ATP projects. Benefit-cost studies from
approximately 40 projects indicate an eight to one return on
investment. The 56 ATP grants awarded in the final round of the
program's existence (September 2007) will be continued to
completion under TIP.
NIST Strategic Planning Documents
The America COMPETES Act created a requirement for NIST to deliver
a three-year programmatic planning document to the Congress at the time
of the submission of the President's budget. This document is to
address NIST's programs under the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services, Construction of Research Facilities, and Industrial
Technology Services accounts. The Act also requires the NIST Visiting
Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT, a FACA advisory committee) to
comment on the document. NIST delivered the first iteration of this
document in February 2008.
NIST previously developed the NIST 2010 Strategic Plan, released in
its final form in June 2004, which outlined strategic drivers, NIST
responses to these drivers, and potential impacts on the economy. The
plan included technical areas of importance for NIST investments, and
strategies that would be pursued by all of NIST's programs to achieve
its overall mission.
In August 2006, NIST released An Assessment of the United States
Measurement System: Addressing Measurement Barriers to Accelerate
Innovation, which identified gaps in measurement technology and
standards through a process of stakeholder discussions and workshops.
This document included high-level judgments on where measurement
technology gaps are impeding innovation in specific technology areas,
and included a discussion of possible NIST responses to these gaps.
NIST Budget Summary
The enacted, COMPETES-authorized, and requested levels for FY07 to
FY09 are summarized in the table below.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
4. NIST Budget Highlights
NIST's Laboratory Programs
The FY09 budget requests $638 million for NIST, $243.8 million
(27.6 percent) lower than the amount authorized in COMPETES and $117.8
million (15.6 percent) lower than the FY08 enacted amount. The request
comes close to the authorized level for NIST's laboratories and user
facilities, proposing a number of new research initiatives in cyber
security, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other areas. However, it
eliminates all funding for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), and
provides only nominal funds for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program to cover the costs of eliminating federal support. The
request includes construction funds for several laboratory facility
upgrades that total $12.6 million (14.6 percent) above the authorized
level.
The increase in laboratory programs and user facilities account
(STRS) for FY09 includes 14 new research initiatives, ten of which are
carried over from the FY08 request.
<bullet> Environment, Health and Safety Measurements and
Standards for Nanotechnology (requested increase of $12
million, new in FY09) will provide standards and
characterization methods to enable the assessment of the
potential environmental, health and safety impacts of
nanotechnology.
<bullet> Measurement and Standards to Accelerate Innovation in
the Biosciences (requested increase of $10 million, new in
FY09) will expand NIST's work in the biosciences, with a focus
on developing measurement technologies, standards, and data to
enable faster and more efficient research and development by
the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry.
<bullet> Cyber Security: Leap-Ahead Security Technologies for
Interconnected Systems (requested increase of $5 million, new
in FY09) will expand NIST's work in computer security. This
initiative is part of the multi-agency Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative.
<bullet> Going at Light Speed: Optical Communications and
Computing (requested increase of $5.84 million, new in FY09)
will accelerate the adoption of high-speed networks by
developing methods for diagnosing faults in optical networks.
<bullet> NIST Center for Neutron Research Expansion and
Reliability Improvements (requested increase of $2 million,
continued from FY08) will enable the installation of
instruments at the upgraded NCNR neutron source.
<bullet> Enabling Nanotechnology from Discovery to Manufacture
(requested increase of $7 million, continued from FY08) aims to
advance scientific understanding of engineered nanotechnology
materials and help U.S. industry develop manufacturing
technologies for these materials. This initiative is a
component of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).
<bullet> Quantum Information Science (requested increase of $7
million, continued from FY08) will increase NIST's research in
high-risk quantum technologies, including nanoscale electronics
and new kinds of computer memory devices.
<bullet> Measurements and Standards for the Climate Change
Science Program (requested increase of $5 million, continued
from FY08) will enhance the NIST component of the multi-agency
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to study the
climate-relevant properties of aerosols and develop methods for
improving satellite measurements of the sun.
<bullet> Innovations in Measurement Science (requested
increase of $3 million, continued from FY08) allows NIST to
pursue the development high-risk, high-reward technology to
improve the precision of a variety of measurement tools.
<bullet> National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Initiative (requested increase of $3.25 million, continued from
FY08) will fund research into technologies for retrofitting or
otherwise protecting buildings against earthquake damage. NIST
is the lead agency of the multi-agency NEHRP program.
<bullet> Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities
(requested increase of $4 million, continued from FY08) will
develop technologies for improving the resilience of structures
and communities to natural disasters such as fires, wind storms
and tsunamis. NIST will conduct this work in partnership with
NOAA, FEMA, and insurance industry organizations.
<bullet> Enabling the Hydrogen Economy (requested increase of
$4 million, continued from FY08) will fund research into fuel-
cell design and high-volume manufacturing by developing
technologies for measuring hydrogen fuel cell performance and
hydrogen transportation.
<bullet> Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe (requested
increase of $2 million, continued from FY08) will develop
technologies and standards for testing and evaluating biometric
identification systems, in partnership with DHS, the FBI, and
the State Department.
<bullet> Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain
Integration (requested increase of $1 million, continued from
FY08) will expand NIST's efforts to move industry towards
seamless global supply chains by developing open manufacturing
standards, measurements, and testing tools.
The FY09 request for the construction and maintenance account (CRF)
includes funds for two major construction projects and an increase to
the maintenance funds for NIST facilities.
<bullet> Boulder Building 1 Extension (requesting $43.5
million) is the final year of requested funding for the
construction of a new laboratory building on the Boulder campus
with high-performance facilities.
<bullet> JILA Expansion: Preparing the Next Generation of
Physicists (requesting $13 million) is the first year of
funding requested to expand laboratories at the JILA joint
institute operated by NIST and the University of Colorado. The
expansion will allow JILA to expand its research capabilities
in atomic, molecular and optical physics and train 30 percent
more students in these fields.
<bullet> Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repairs
(SCMMR) Increase (requesting increase of $5.15 million) will
permanently increase the NIST budget for maintenance and repair
of laboratory facilities. NIST uses the SCMMR account to
modernize aging infrastructure and repair damage to its
buildings.
The FY09 request for the industrial technology services account
(ITS) proposes elimination of both programs in the account.
<bullet> The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) (formerly the
Advanced Technology Program, ATP): The FY09 budget request
eliminates TIP, which was funded at $65.2 million in FY08.
Under the provisions of the COMPETES Act, TIP will continue to
support the final round of ATP grants, awarded in 2007.
<bullet> The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP): The
FY09 request for MEP is $4 million to cover close-out costs.
The budget proposes that MEP Centers become self-sustaining, as
was intended in the original legislation that created the
program. However, the Technology Administration Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-309) amended this original sunset provision,
extending federal support for MEP Centers indefinitely so long
as they receive a positive evaluation through an independent
review.
5. Issues
<bullet> Does the three-year programmatic planning document
establish a good strategic plan for NIST?
<bullet> Does the FY09 budget request set the appropriate
priorities to achieve NIST's mission of improving U.S.
competitiveness?
<bullet> What stakeholder outreach did NIST conduct to develop
its budget initiatives?
<bullet> What would be the impact on small manufacturers if
federal support for MEP is eliminated?
<bullet> Is eliminating TIP a good idea in today's global
innovative environment? Does a competitiveness initiative in
the beginning of the 21st century make sense without programs
like TIP?
Chairman Wu. The hearing will now come to order. Good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome
everybody to this hearing of the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee.
Today, we will be discussing the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, or NIST, and its fiscal year 2009
budget request. The Science and Technology Committee has always
been one of NIST's strongest supporters. It is one of my
favorite agencies. NIST's work on standards and technology has
enabled many of the products and services in our modern
economy, from semiconductors to ATMs to hearing aids.
Today, NIST is in a position to play a vital role in
keeping our nation innovative and economically competitive.
Last year, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which put
NIST on a 10 year path to doubling as an investment in our
innovation future. COMPETES included the first comprehensive
authorization of NIST in 15 years.
This subcommittee developed that authorization bill, which
was incorporated in the COMPETES Act, and we believe it made
NIST an important component of a balanced innovation agenda. At
that time, I, and other Members of the Committee, were
concerned that NIST did not have a good, comprehensive plan for
what its research activities would be with a doubled budget. It
was not clear how NIST set its funding priorities, and how it
allocated resources among different technical areas. Indeed,
witnesses at last year's hearing expressed similar concerns.
That is why the America COMPETES Act included a requirement
that NIST deliver a three-year strategic plan to Congress with
the budget request. This plan was to include all of NIST's
programs, including the NIST Labs and lab construction, the
Industrial Technology Services Programs, and the Baldrige
Award.
The document that NIST delivered falls far short of this
requirement. It leaves out several of NIST's most important
programs, and it does not lay out a strategic plan to ensure
that NIST's investments are suitable for the competitive
challenges of the 21st Century. I am deeply concerned that NIST
has still not developed a comprehensive, programmatic planning
document. The COMPETES Act clearly established Congressional
priorities for NIST. However, the budget request this year
largely ignores Congress' input.
The request is 28 percent lower than NIST's financial year
2009 authorization. In fact, NIST is the only science agency
included in COMPETES whose budget request is actually lower
this year than last year. COMPETES put the Manufacturing
Extension Program, or MEP, on a 10-year path to doubling, to
enhance its ability to help small manufacturers modernize their
operation and remain globally competitive. I am disappointed to
see that once again, the Administration proposes to eliminate
this program.
In addition, COMPETES created the Technology Innovation
Program, or TIP, to provide cost-shared grants to small, high-
tech companies that are working to bring new technologies from
concept to reality. TIP updated and replaced the highly
successful Advanced Technology Program, and it will help reap
the benefits of the federal investment in research. I am
disappointed that the Administration wants to eliminate this
key component of a comprehensive innovation agenda.
And now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for
his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman David Wu
I would like to call the Subcommittee to order.
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Technology &
Innovation Subcommittee. Today we will be discussing the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, and its fiscal year
2009 budget request.
The Science and Technology Committee has always been one of NIST's
strongest supporters. NIST's work on standards and technology has
enabled many of the products and services in our modern economy, from
semiconductors to ATMs to hearing aids. Today, NIST is in a position to
play a vital role in keeping our nation innovative and economically
competitive.
Last year, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which put NIST
on a ten-year path to doubling as an investment in our innovation
future. COMPETES included the first comprehensive authorization of NIST
in 15 years. This subcommittee developed that authorization bill, which
we believed made NIST an important component of a balanced innovation
agenda.
At that time I and other Members of the Committee were concerned
that NIST did not have a good, comprehensive plan for what its research
activities would be with a doubled budget. It was not clear how NIST
set its funding priorities, and how it allocated resources among
different technical areas. Indeed, witnesses at last year's hearing
expressed similar concerns.
That is why the COMPETES Act included a requirement that NIST
deliver a three-year strategic plan to Congress with the budget
request. This plan was to include all of NIST's programs, including the
NIST labs and lab construction, the industrial technology services
programs, and the Baldrige Award.
The document that NIST delivered falls far short of this mandate.
It leaves out several of NIST's most important programs, and it does
not lay out a strategic plan to ensure that NIST's investments are
suitable for the competitive challenges of the 21st century. I am very
concerned that NIST has still not developed a comprehensive
programmatic planning document.
The COMPETES Act clearly established Congressional priorities for
NIST. However, the budget request this year largely ignores any of
Congress' input. The request is 28 percent lower than NIST's FY09
authorization. In fact, NIST is the only science agency included in
COMPETES whose budget request is actually lower this year than last
year.
COMPETES put the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, on a
ten-year path to doubling, to enhance its ability to help small
manufacturers modernize their operations and remain globally
competitive. I am disappointed to see that the Administration proposes
to eliminate this program.
In addition, COMPETES created the Technology Innovation Program, or
TIP, to provide cost-shared grants to small, high-tech companies that
are working to bring new technologies from concept to reality. TIP
updated and replaced the highly successful Advanced Technology Program,
and it will help reap the benefits of the federal investment in
research. I am very disappointed that the Administration wants to
eliminate this key component of a comprehensive innovation agenda.
Mr. Gingrey. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Wu.
Thank you for convening the hearing today on the Fiscal Year
2009 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, better known as NIST.
Unfortunately, my duties with the House Armed Services
Committee will pull me away from this important hearing on the
most important federal agency under the jurisdiction of our
Subcommittee, Technology and Innovation, and therefore, I am
eager to begin testimony from our esteemed panel, and will keep
my remarks brief.
NIST is simply exceptional in the quality and impact of its
scientific research, services, and partnerships. Almost every
federal agency in the United States industry sector uses the
standards, the measurements, and certification services that
NIST labs provide. In 2007 alone, NIST provided over 42,000
calibration tests and reference materials across the country.
And furthermore, 78 scientists and engineers from my home State
of Georgia, along with approximately 8,000 scientists and
engineers nationwide, collaborated with NIST throughout the
year.
NIST's work helps small and large manufacturers in our
country compete in the emerging global marketplace, and the
assistance NIST provides is critical to our 21st Century
innovative economy.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the President's request of
$535 million for NIST Labs, which does put NIST back on the
path to doubling its budget laid out in the American
Competitiveness Initiative, as you pointed out. However, it is
unfortunate that the Administration has sought to end federal
contributions to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program, or MEP.
Last year, at this subcommittee's very first hearing, I
said that I was disappointed with the President's request of
only $46 million for MEP. Unfortunately, I am even more
disappointed with the current request to actually end federal
participation in this very important program.
Mr. Chairman, MEP helps small and medium-sized United
States manufacturers optimize their operations and remain
competitive in a global economy. In Georgia, our MEP program
served 834 manufacturing clients in Fiscal Year 2007. It helped
create 761 jobs across my state. In my district alone, MEP has
completed 20 unique projects for companies in northwest Georgia
that will help them stay on the cutting edge of manufacture and
innovation.
Because of the positive impact that the MEP program has for
our economy, it deserves at least the approximate $100 million
Congress has provided in recent years. So, I intend to work
with my colleagues to see that it does receive an adequate
appropriation for this fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, NIST is largely an agency that does not
receive its due credit for its yeomen's work across all federal
agencies, and I want to thank Dr. Turner and his team for the
job that they do on a daily basis. I look forward to hearing
from you on the panel. I am, again, apologetic that I am going
to have to run out, and may hopefully get back in time to hear
the rest of your testimony.
And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Phil Gingrey
Good afternoon Chairman Wu. Thank you for convening this hearing
today on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. Unfortunately, my duties with the House
Armed Services Committee will pull me away from this important hearing
on the most important federal agency under the jurisdiction of the
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. Therefore I'm eager to begin
testimony from our esteemed panel and will keep my remarks brief.
NIST is simply exceptional in the quality and impact of its
scientific research, services, and partnerships. Almost every federal
agency and U.S. industry sector uses the standards, measurements, and
certification services that NIST labs provide.
In 2007 alone, NIST provided over 42,000 calibration tests and
reference materials across the country. Furthermore, 78 scientists and
engineers from my home State of Georgia--along with approximately 8,000
scientists and engineers nationwide--collaborated with NIST throughout
the year. NIST's work helps small and large manufacturers in our
country compete in the emerging global marketplace, and the assistance
NIST provides is critical to our 21st Century innovation economy.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the President's request of $535
million for the NIST labs, which puts NIST back on the path to doubling
its budget laid out in the American Competitiveness Initiative.
However, it is unfortunate that the Administration has sought to end
federal contributions to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program or M-E-P. Last year at this subcommittee's very first hearing,
I said that I was disappointed with the President's request of only $46
million for MEP. Unfortunately, I am even more disappointed with the
current request to end federal participation in this important program.
Mr. Chairman, MEP helps small- and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers
optimize their operations and remain competitive in the global economy.
In Georgia, the MEP program served 834 manufacturing clients in Fiscal
Year 2007 and helped create 761 jobs across the state. In my district
alone, MEP has completed 20 unique projects for companies in Northwest
Georgia that will help them stay on the cutting edge of manufacturing
innovation.
Because of the positive impact that the MEP program has for our
economy, it deserves at least the approximate $100 million Congress has
provided in recent years, and I intend to work with my colleagues to
see it receives an adequate appropriation for FY 2009.
Mr. Chairman, NIST is largely an agency that does not receive its
due credit for its yeoman's work across all federal agencies. I would
like to thank Dr. Turner and his team for the job they do on a daily
basis. I look forward to hearing from our panel, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Wu. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. If there are other
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
And at this point, I will briefly introduce three of our
witnesses, to allow Dr. Ehlers to introduce two of the
wonderful witnesses who come from the great State of Michigan.
First, Dr. James Turner, who has been the Acting Director
of NIST since September of 2007. Dr. Mary Good, who is the
Founding Dean of the College of Engineering and Information
Technology at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and
served as the Under Secretary of Technology during the first
Clinton Administration. And Dr. Peter Fiske is Vice President
of Research and Development at PAX Scientific, an engineering,
research, and product design firm.
And I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan,
Dr. Ehlers, to introduce the final two witnesses.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you yielding.
First of all, let me just say that I have a very soft spot
in my heart for NIST. Years ago, when it was still NBS, and
which I think it should still be, I served as a Fellow at the
Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics in Boulder, and
they then elected me a Nonresident Fellow, and I went back for
three summers. At a great institution, I learned a great deal.
I hope I contributed something, as well. But I have also served
on the visiting panel for NBS for several years, and it was a
good experience.
In terms of introducing the two individuals from Michigan.
First of all, Dr. James Serum who, with a name like that,
obviously was destined to become a scientist. He comes from
Hudsonville, Michigan, which, its most important product, in
addition to Dr. Serum, is Hudsonville Ice Cream, and had I
known you were here, I would have brought you a gallon of that.
At one time, I got on a plane in Michigan to fly to California,
and the person next to me was holding a steaming box on his
lap. Today, they would have assumed he was a terrorist. It
turned out he couldn't leave, couldn't go back home without
taking a gallon of Hudsonville Ice Cream back home, so he had
it in dry ice just to please his wife.
Next, we have Mr. Michael Coast, who is the President and
CEO of the Michigan Manufacturing and Technology Center. Also,
I believe, President of the National Association of the
individuals who direct that, and that is why he is representing
all of them here. But also, the Grand Rapids, Michigan MEP
program is partially under his jurisdiction. He has done a
fantastic job in Michigan. I totally agree with the comments of
Mr. Gingrey that the importance of that program, I also don't
understand why the Administration keeps zeroing it out. I
finally decided that there is a little man buried in the bowels
of the White House who thinks it is a bad program, and zeros it
out every year, and then, the Congress proceeds to fund it
appropriately.
I am pleased with the MEP program. I am pleased with the
TIP program, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
liberty to expound my views on this. I think they are both
excellent programs, and I assume that we will, once again,
reinstate them and fund them appropriately.
Thank you for giving me the extra time.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, and I not
only appreciate your comments about MEP and TIP, but I will
keep my eyes open for that wonderful ice cream, smoking or not,
on airplanes.
As our witnesses know, your written statements will be
taken into the record. Spoken testimony should be limited to
five minutes, after which, Members of the Subcommittee will
have five minutes each to ask questions.
And Dr. Turner, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Dr. Turner. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Wu, Ranking
Member Gingrey, Dr. Ehlers, we thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for
NIST.
This budget puts us back on the doubling path, as
envisioned in the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative, and as reflected in the America COMPETES Act that
Congress enacted last year. I want to thank the Chairman and
the Ranking Member, and the other Members of the Committee, for
their leadership in the America COMPETES Act.
For FY09, our request is $638 million, which includes $634
million for NIST's core programs, encompassing NIST's research
and facilities, and $4 million for the Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership. The funding level decisions for MEP, as
well as the TIP program, were difficult choices that had to be
made in tight budget times. The budget for NIST's core
represents a 22 percent increase over the FY08 appropriations
for these programs.
You will hear today from our VCAT, our Visiting Committee
on Advanced Technology. I want to thank them for the time and
effort that they offer and provide in advising NIST. Most
recently, they recommended an internal Nanotechnology Council
to coordinate our nanotechnology work. We welcome their
recommendation, and as of Friday, that Council now exists.
The President's request focuses on high impact research
that will spur economic growth, and improve our quality of
life, and thereby accomplish NIST's mission to advance
innovation and industrial competitiveness. The ACI and COMPETES
Act enable NIST to continue to aggressively lay the science and
technology foundation recommended by so many reports and
proclamations on U.S. innovation and competitiveness. It is
paramount that NIST move rapidly and wisely toward realizing
the vision of being the world's leader in creating critical
measurement solutions and promoting equitable standards.
Well-targeted measurements and standards investments are a
proven path to stimulate innovation, foster industrial
competitiveness, increase economic security, and improve the
quality of life of all Americans. The FY 2009 budget proposal
contains a total of 17 initiatives. These initiatives were
developed using a rigorous process that includes talking with
industry, stakeholders, and our Visiting Committee.
Five of the initiatives are new for FY09. The rest were
previously proposed in the FY08 budget, but to all our
collective disappointment, the FY 2008 budget took us off the
doubling track. At NIST, this has real consequences. Three
hundred new employees and guest researchers were not hired. A
number of important research projects were stopped or delayed,
and maintenance of our facilities will slow down while
increasing the risk of equipment and facility failures.
Our experience last year makes this year's budget request
much more important. We must not lose this historic moment to
make the significant, necessary investment in the physical
sciences.
Let me briefly describe our initiatives. We have grouped
them into three areas. First, addressing urgent environmental
safety and security needs, which include initiatives in
nanotechnology, climate change, biometrics, earthquake hazards,
and disaster-resilient structures. Secondly, investment in
strategic and rapidly advancing technologies, which includes
initiatives in bioscience measurements, quantum computing,
cyber security, optical light communications, hydrogen fuel,
and manufacturing supply chain integration. And finally,
building our science and engineering capacity and capability,
which includes a proposed expansion of the JILA facility that
Dr. Ehlers referred to, in Boulder, and a new Boulder lab
facility, an expansion of the NIST Center for Neutron Research
in Gaithersburg, and an increase in our major repairs and
maintenance.
For 107 years, NIST research has been critical to the
Nation's innovation and competitiveness. The increased funding
in the President's FY09 budget for NIST's core will directly
support technological advances in broad sectors of the economy
that will, quite literally, define the 21st Century, as well as
to improve the safety and quality of life for all our citizens.
Again, this is a historic moment. The ACI is truly a once
in a generation opportunity to enable cutting edge advances in
measurement science that will ensure the U.S. drives
technological change.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Subcommittee throughout this process. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Turner follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Turner
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the
President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). This budget reflects NIST's growth
path under the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
and under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) that this committee
passed last year. The levels reflected in this budget will further
enhance NIST's ability to provide the Nation's critical measurement and
standards needs.
NIST will meet this challenge by relying on partnerships with
industry and academia to plan and carry out research and provide
services. These partnerships also allow NIST to stay abreast of current
high priority needs and to anticipate emerging needs. More than 1,800
guest researchers work with nearly 3,000 NIST staff members in NIST
laboratories and facilities on several campuses to provide the Nation
with the most advanced measurement and standards research and services.
The FY 2009 request of $638M includes $634M for NIST's core
programs (encompassing NIST's research and facilities) and $4M for the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The budget for the NIST
core represents a 22 percent increase (excluding congressionally
directed grants) over the FY 2008 appropriations for these programs.
The President's request focuses on high-impact research that will
address critical national needs, spur economic growth and accomplish
NIST's mission to advance innovation and industrial competitiveness.
Supporting Innovation and the Economy
The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NIST's
measurement and standards work. Virtually every segment of the
economy--transportation, computers, banking, food processing, health
care and communication--depends on NIST research, products and
services. More broadly, the quality of the water we drink, the air we
breathe, and the food we eat depends in part on that work. NIST
standards-which are not regulatory-ensure that consumers are confident
of the quantity and quality of the product purchased whether it is a
gallon of gasoline or the amount of electricity used and stated in the
monthly bill. They protect our banking at ATMs and our online
purchases. Soon, these standards will help to protect the privacy of
our health records.
They improve the accuracy of our medical tests and treatments and
help to make sure that we know the nutritional content of what we are
eating. They help to convict criminals and free the innocent through
more accurate and faster DNA tests. They provide crucial timekeeping
that we depend upon for navigation, telecommunications, financial
transactions, and basic research. And they improve the readiness of our
first responders and our homeland security. The measurement and
standards infrastructure provided NIST paves the way for U.S.
innovation and economic competitiveness. In many instances, NIST work
in measurement science is the critical path to discovery and
innovations.
While companies strive to make their latest products and services
as easy to use and as simple for consumers as possible, the underlying
knowledge and technology base that makes this possible is certainly not
simple. Consider the web of fiber optic networks that makes broadband
communication--from long distance telephone, to cable television, to
high-speed Internet--possible. The system includes dozens of
independent networks, tens of thousands of connections and millions of
miles of optical fibers, each fiber capable of carrying hundreds of
separate signals simultaneously. Yet, despite its already mind boggling
complexity, this fiber optic system that our economy depends on may
soon suffer with the same kind of traffic congestion currently clogging
highways around many major metropolitan areas.
To prevent this, communications manufacturers and service companies
need faster, more accurate ways to measure the quality of optical
signals, data analysis tools to diagnose transmission problems, and
nanoscale monitoring systems for ultra fast microchips that use light
instead of electrons to store and process information. NIST is uniquely
positioned to help meet these challenges. NIST has the right
combination of world class scientists and engineers, outstanding
scientific facilities, and strong ties with both the industrial and
service sectors to provide the tools needed to realize next-generation
optical technologies. As a result, the consumer will receive
information faster, with fewer disruptions, and be able to interconnect
between networks to get work done that suits their needs.
Medicine is facing a similar complexity explosion. As the project
to decode the three billion ``letters'' of the human genome has
demonstrated, the frontiers of medicine have moved in the last few
decades from often qualitative assessments to increasingly quantitative
measures down to the level of individual biological molecules. As a
result, medical researchers skilled in the biological sciences are
increasingly finding that they need to integrate physical scientists,
and their quantitative measurement skills into their research teams.
Just as a systems engineer might study an entire fiber optic
network from its individual components to its overall efficiency, life
science researchers are beginning to treat medical and biological
research problems with a ``systems approach'' long used in engineering
and the physical sciences. Life sciences researchers are attempting to
fully integrate what they know at the nano and microscale of molecules,
DNA, and proteins with the macroscale problems of disease and other
medical problems experienced by patients. Again, NIST, with its
interdisciplinary research staff and expertise in creating ground-
breaking new measurement methods and standards, can provide the tools
needed to advance the field. The payoff will be faster development of
new drugs, more personalized medicine, and better prediction,
diagnosis, and understanding of disease. This approach leverages NIST's
core competencies.
Similar opportunities exist for NIST to undertake the equally
complex measurement challenges involved in safely exploiting the
promise of nanotechnologies or transforming the field of computer
modeling and visualization to a truly quantitative, predictive science.
To accomplish all of these goals and to meet the challenges of the
ACI, NIST must continue to update and expand its own laboratory
facilities. Consequently, this budget also includes a request for the
final year of funding for the continued construction of an extension to
NIST facilities at its laboratory in Boulder, CO (Building 1) to
provide new high performance space; a new request for an expansion of
facilities and capacity to train future U.S. scientists in cutting edge
atomic, molecular, and optical physics at JILA--NIST's world renowned
joint institute with the University of Colorado at Boulder; as well as
funding for the third year of a program to expand and upgrade NIST's
Center for Neutron Research--the Nation's leading facility of its kind
and a critical research tool for more than 2,200 researchers annually
who work in nanotechnology, advanced materials, biotechnology, and
other fields.
FY 2008 Impacts
The ACI and the passage of the America COMPETES Act provide an
unprecedented opportunity to further enhance and accelerate NIST's
contributions to innovation and competitiveness.
Unfortunately, FY 2008 appropriations were well below the requested
level. Those appropriations do not provide funding for NIST's
laboratory research and facilities efforts at the President's request
level for the ACI. We are pleased that the President's FY 2009 Request
would restore NIST to the path to double over a ten-year period its
core research activities. NIST will make every effort to optimize the
funds provided, but the lower 2008 funding provided compared to the
President's budget request will have negative impacts on NIST and its
customers and partners in industry, academia, and other agencies. Those
impacts include a real loss in timely research that yields positive
benefits for the Nation. The FY 2008 omnibus appropriation included
$83M in earmarks and unrequested grants for NIST, the impact of which
is to slow down or limit the core research and facilities proposed at
NIST. This means that research areas critical to U.S. innovation will
not be advanced as aggressively as originally proposed in critical
areas such as nanotechnology, quantum computing, climate change and
earthquake and other disaster resistant structures.
It also means that NIST falls $13.5M short of the amount needed to
cover salary increases and other anticipated costs, requiring several
actions. Consequently, NIST will slow down new hires with specialized
skills and will not be able to bring on board the estimated 300
additional staff and guest researchers anticipated with the budget
initiatives requested by the President. NIST managers are reviewing
laboratory and administrative activities to ensure that ongoing high
priority projects receive the funding that they need and that all funds
are used as efficiently as possible.
As part of the ACI, NIST received $79.1M of its requested $93.9M
for two new facilities initiatives and for operational maintenance,
major repairs and safety of the NIST campuses. To compensate for the
shortfall, NIST has adjusted its overall facilities plans in order to
proceed with the two major projects. NIST will slow down its plans to
reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance projects on existing
facilities. This increases the chances of unanticipated major equipment
outages and temporary loss of facilities use, resulting in higher
repair costs and loss of researchers' productivity.
The President's FY 2009 request for NIST would get the Institute
back on a doubling track--enabling NIST to continue to aggressively lay
the science and technology foundation recommended by so many reports
and proclamations on U.S. innovation and competitiveness. It is
paramount that NIST move rapidly and wisely toward realizing the vision
of being the world's leader in creating critical measurement solutions
and promoting equitable standards. Well-targeted measurement and
standards investments is a proven path to stimulate innovation, foster
industrial competitiveness, increase economic security, and improve the
quality of life of all Americans.
FY 2009 President's Budget
NIST's FY 2009 budget request totals $638M, which includes $634M
for core research and facilities programs, a 22 percent increase
(excluding congressionally directed grants) over the FY08
appropriations for these same core programs. The increased funding for
NIST's core programs provided through the FY 2009 request will directly
support innovative advances in broad sectors of the economy as well as
improve the safety and quality of life for our citizens. The FY 2009
budget contains a total of 17 initiatives. Five of the initiatives have
not been requested before. The balance of the initiatives was proposed
in the FY08 budget. After being updated, all went through a rigorous
internal process to assess their value and connection to NIST's
mission. Their relevance, technical merit, and priority were
reaffirmed.
The following table summarizes the proposed FY 2009 budget. In this
table, we show both the FY 2007 and FY 2008 enacted levels without
congressionally directed projects for comparison.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The total request of $638M for NIST is divided into three
appropriations accounts:
I. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES (STRS) $535M. This
category includes $526.5M for NIST laboratory research and $8.5M for
the Baldrige National Quality Program. Major components of the FY 2009
request include four new STRS initiatives (in italics) and nine
initiatives requested--but not funded--in FY 2008.
Addressing Urgent Environment, Safety and Security Needs
(+$26.2M)
Nanotechnology: Environment, Health and Safety
Climate Change Science: Measurements and Standards
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities
Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe
Investing in Strategic and Rapidly Advancing Technologies
(+$42.8M)
Innovation in the Biosciences Measurements and
Standards
Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative:
Leap-Ahead Technologies
Optical Communications and Computing
Quantum Information Science
Nanotechnology: Discovery to Manufacture
Innovations in Measurement Science
Enabling the Use of Hydrogen as a Fuel
Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain
Integration
II. CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES (CRF) $99M. This category
includes $37.3M in base funding for operational maintenance, major
repairs and safety of the NIST sites; and $63.7M for three initiatives
outlined below.
Boosting U.S. Science/Engineering Capacity and Capability
($63.7M)
JILA Building Expansion: Pushing the Scientific
Frontiers
Boulder Building 1 Extension: 21st Century Tools
Safety, Capacity, Maintenance and Major Repairs
NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Capacity and
Capability
III. INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ITS) $4M. The Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and the Technology
Innovation Program (TIP) compose NIST's Industrial Technology Services
account.
The budget also reflects the Administration's focus on its highest
priorities--including basic research, consistent with the American
Competitiveness Initiative--and the need to restrain spending. The
request for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership is $4
million, enough for an orderly end to federal funding for the program,
while no funds are requested for the Technology Innovation Program.
FY 2009 Initiatives in Detail.
The initiatives are described in more detail below. They are
organized within appropriations accounts and by FY 2009 initiative
categories.
I. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH SERVICES (STRS)
Addressing Urgent Environment, Safety and Security Needs (+$26.2M)
Nanotechnology: Environment, Health and Safety Measurements & Standards
(+$12M)
Products made with nanometer-scale components and materials--a
thousand times thinner than a human hair and smaller--are already
dramatically improving the performance of current products from stain-
resistant pants to fuel-efficient aircraft. Many more applications
beckon such as targeted cancer drugs, ultra-fast electronics, and
improved diagnostic tools for medicine.
The small size of these components produces new properties not seen
in larger-scale ``bulk'' materials. While nanomaterials promise many
useful applications, very little is known about the environmental,
health, and safety (EHS) risks associated with them. The safety or
toxicity of nanomaterials can be determined only with well-understood
materials and well-defined testing methods.
The interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has
designated NIST as the lead federal agency to develop metrology tools
and methods for measuring and characterizing nanomaterials. NIST has
the interdisciplinary physical-science expertise and the facilities
needed to develop accurate, validated methods for understanding the EHS
properties of nanoscale materials.
The proposed initiative funding will allow NIST to launch a three-
pronged approach to the problem:
<bullet> create a classification scheme for determining the
characteristics of nanoparticles necessary for assessing
toxicity, including size, shape, and chemical composition;
<bullet> develop detection and measurement methods for
quantifying the number and nature of nanoparticles with EHS
impact in biological and environmental samples; and
<bullet> predict how modifications to nanoparticles will
affect their impact on the environment, health, and safety.
Measurements and Standards for the Climate Change Science Program
(+$5M)
The climate is changing. Determining how fast it is changing and
understanding the complex relationship between all the environmental
variables to allow accurate predictions is part of the objective of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Some of the drivers of climate,
such as the sun's output, may vary slowly over decades. As a result,
climate predictions depend critically on developing absolute
measurements of the sun's energy that can be compared accurately over
decades from different sensors. Other important variables include the
sizes, shapes, and chemical composition of particles or droplets
(aerosols) in the atmosphere. Whether aerosols contribute to the
warming or the cooling of the Earth depends upon their composition.
With the funding provided through this initiative and in
coordination with other agencies, NIST will develop:
<bullet> an international irradiance measurement scale to be
used in rigorously calibrating satellite light intensity
instruments prior to launch to ensure sufficient accuracy to
allow valid comparisons among results from different
instruments or from data sets taken over different periods of
time;
<bullet> new instrument design strategies and quality
assurance programs to optimize accuracy and stability of
satellite and ground-based solar measurement systems;
<bullet> techniques for generating specific types of aerosols
in the laboratory, measuring aerosol optical and physical
properties, and simulating aerosol properties that cannot yet
be measured in the laboratory; and
<bullet> a database of critically evaluated data on aerosol
properties collected at NIST and elsewhere.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (+$3.3M)
Within the United States, more than 75 million people are located
in urban areas considered to be at moderate to high risk for
earthquakes. Just the economic value of the physical structures within
these regions--not including the potential loss of life and economic
disruption--is valued at close to $8.6 trillion. A single large
earthquake in the United States, like the one that struck Kobe, Japan,
in 1995, can easily cause damage of $100 billion to $200 billion.
A critical gap exists between the results produced by basic
research and the implementation of that knowledge in the field. New
construction materials, techniques, building codes, and standards do
not reflect the current state of knowledge. Through the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), NIST is tasked with
conducting problem-focused research to bridge this gap and to promote
its application by the private sector.
At the proposed funding level, NIST will:
<bullet> identify implementation gaps between basic research
results and design guidance and national model building code
provisions;
<bullet> develop rational cost-effective, consensus-based
seismic design and analysis procedures for use in national
model building codes;
<bullet> design guidelines for the testing and design of major
structural systems;
<bullet> characterize fully the seismic capacities of typical
older building structural components and systems as they are
built; and
<bullet> develop structural performance criteria, analytical
models, and cost-effective rehabilitation techniques for
existing buildings.
Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities (+$4M)
For the past few years, natural hazards, including hurricanes,
extreme winds, storm surge, wildland fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis,
as well as terrorist actions, have been a continuing and significant
threat to U.S. communities.
The disaster resilience of our physical infrastructure and
communities today is determined in large measure by the building
standards, codes, and practices used when they were built. With few
exceptions, these are oversimplified and inconsistent with current risk
assessments. As construction and rebuilding costs continue to rise,
there is increasing recognition of the need to move from response and
recovery to proactively identifying and mitigating hazards that pose
the greatest threats.
NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
have coordinated their programs in this area. Initiative funding in FY
2009 will allow NIST to develop:
<bullet> standard methods to predict losses, evaluate disaster
resilience, and estimate cost-to-benefit of risk management
strategies at the community and regional scales as opposed to
the individual building scale;
<bullet> decision support tools to modernize standards, codes,
and practices consistent with the risk;
<bullet> a validated ``computational wind tunnel'' for
predicting extreme wind effects on structures; and
<bullet> risk-based storm surge maps to be used in designing
structures in coastal regions and an improved hurricane
intensity classification scale.
In addition, the funding will expand and accelerate research
results for projects begun with funding in FY 2007 on prediction of
fire hazards at the wildland/urban interface; and improved tools for
designing and constructing earthquake-resistant structures.
Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe (+$2M)
NIST has decades of experience improving human identification
systems and currently is working with other federal agencies, including
the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the U.S. Department of State, to evaluate and
improve the ability of biometrics to enhance border security. The USA
Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
call for NIST to develop and certify a technology standard for
verifying the identity of individuals and to determine the accuracy of
biometric technologies, including fingerprint, facial, and iris
recognition.
Biometrics technologies, primarily fingerprints, are being used
broadly in the United States for border security. New technologies
under development, in particular, ``multi-modal'' systems that combine
two or more biometric technologies, such as fingerprint, facial, and
iris, promise to bring significant improvements. But NIST studies have
shown that the accuracy of today's facial recognition systems is
relatively poor compared to fingerprints, and iris recognition needs
more study and testing to determine its accuracy in operational
environments.
In conjunction with several other federal agencies, including the
FBI and Department of Homeland Security, private industry and
universities, NIST is managing the Multiple Biometric Grand Challenge,
which aims to reduce errors in both face and iris recognition systems.
Also, NIST is performing large-scale evaluations of iris recognition to
promote its standardization.
NIST is also supporting the development of standards for inter-
operability between different fingerprint systems through large-scale
testing.
With additional funding, NIST will:
<bullet> enable facial recognition technologies to be used for
border security;
<bullet> build on its testing program to determine the
accuracy of multi-modal systems;
<bullet> develop tests and guidelines to assure that future
biometric systems are inter-operable, and work efficiently in
real-time applications by:
improving the use of fingerprints with real-time
fingerprint readers;
improve the inter-operability, robustness, and
usability of fingerprint systems and facial recognition
systems;
<bullet> improve biometric systems by enabling simultaneous
use of facial recognition, fingerprint, and iris-scan
technologies
NIST will coordinate this work with other government agencies and
the private sector while taking international standards developments
into account.
II. Investing in Strategic and Rapidly Advancing Technologies
(+$42.8M)
Measurements and Standards to Accelerate Innovation in the Biosciences
(+$10M)
Inaccurate bioscience measurements sometimes make it hard to tell
when treatments are healing or causing harm. They often increase costs
and lower the quality of health care. The lack of reliable,
quantitative measurements in the biosciences is also impeding progress
in a number of promising life-science research areas. Compared to the
measurements made in the physical sciences, medical tests and
bioscience-based measurements need to be repeated and rechecked far too
frequently. Today, even standard measurements on a limited number of
blood proteins often yield variable results among expert laboratories.
The research initiatives newly proposed in FY 2009 will focus on
three intersecting areas of research:
<bullet> make biological data more quantitative and reliable
by establishing methods, standards, and benchmark data for the
fundamental measurements that underpin the life sciences in
techniques such as mass spectrometry and molecular imaging;
<bullet> devise new methods for simultaneously measuring
hundreds to thousands of molecules at a time by developing and
validating new technologies in areas such as microfluidics and
live cell imaging; and
<bullet> help laboratories more easily compare and combine
their measurements and computer models with one another by
developing standards for the exchange of biological data and
information.
Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative: Leap-Ahead Security
Technologies (+$5M)
Many of today's tools and mechanisms for protecting against cyber
attacks were designed with yesterday's technology in mind. Information
systems have evolved from room-size computer workstations shut off from
the rest of the world to ubiquitous mobile devices interconnected by a
global Internet. In this diverse ecology of communication devices, no
cyber security solution works on all operating systems and can protect
every type of computer and network component. Operating systems are now
composed of millions of lines of code, rather than thousands, and have
many more potential holes.
The NIST request is part of the Administration's Comprehensive
Cyber Security Initiative. NIST is a recognized world leader in the
field of cyber security. Working with other federal agencies, NIST
proposes an initiative in three essential elements of cyber security
infrastructure:
<bullet> create technical standards for generating,
distributing, using, storing and destroying secret numbers
known as cryptographic keys, commonly used to grant access to
authorized individuals on encrypted computer networks and
systems. This effort will be conducted in technical
consultation with the National Security Agency (NSA) and the
Department of Defense (DOD), as well as other government
agencies and non-government organizations;
<bullet> nurture the development of ``multi-factor
authentication'' methods. Such methods require users to verify
their identities through multiple methods, such as passwords
and iris scans, rather than just one. NIST will develop a
standardized framework that ensures these methods work across
different computer platforms and operating systems. The effort
will be coordinated with vendors and federal departments,
including the Department of Homeland Security; and
<bullet> extend the Federal Desktop Core Configuration, a set
of standard security settings that optimize security, to other
operating systems, applications, and network devices beyond the
existing support for Windows XP and Vista.
Going at Light Speed: Optical Communications and Computing (+$5.8M)
As demand on the U.S. communications network continues to grow, a
new generation of transmission and networking technologies is required
to keep pace. Keeping pace is critical because communications
fundamentally drives productivity gains and economic growth; it cradles
innovation in many current and future industries, including
telemedicine, entertainment, and security.
This initiative will promote advances in light-scale communications
ranging from the nanoscopic innards of an individual computer to the
continent-spanning scale of the Nation's optical communications
network. Already the world leader in measurements of high-speed devices
and of hybrid optical and electronic devices, NIST will work closely
with industry and expand its work to include research and development
of:
<bullet> new measurement capabilities to accommodate higher-
speed, next-generation communications networks;
<bullet> measurements that diagnose and locate transmission
problems on data networks, and provide the information needed
to reconfigure and redirect traffic to match demand; and
<bullet> new measurement techniques for analyzing computer
circuits that transmit light instead of electricity, enabling
the manipulation of light within computer chips, and
interconnecting very small electronic and optical devices.
Quantum Information Science (+$7M)
NIST scientists are world leaders in the emerging field of quantum
science. Three NIST scientists have won separate Nobel Prizes in the
last 10 years based on their work in the field. Many of the best minds
in physics today believe that applications of quantum science will
transform the 21st century just as integrated circuits and classical
electronics transformed the 20th century.
Having developed potential components for quantum computers and
demonstrated other advances, NIST is proposing to expand further its
quantum science program in FY 2009. Several of the projects proposed
under this initiative will be in collaboration with the Joint Quantum
Institute established by NIST, the University of Maryland, and the
National Security Agency. NIST will:
<bullet> begin development of quantum ``wires'' that use
``teleportation'' techniques to reliably transport information
between the components of a simple quantum computer based on
manipulation of atoms, other elementary particles, or solid-
state quantum devices;
<bullet> begin development of quantum memory analogous to the
random access memory of today's computers to allow more complex
logic operations;
<bullet> begin development of methods for transferring
quantum-based information from one form (such as atoms) to
another form (such as photons);
<bullet> develop an all-optical clock for more precise time
and frequency measurement; and
<bullet> exploit the unusual quantum properties of
``coherence'' and entanglement to provide exquisite physical
science measurement capabilities with improved sensitivity,
accuracy, and speed.
Enabling Nanotechnology from Discovery to Manufacture (+$7M)
In FY 2007, NIST began a major initiative to address the
measurement barriers hindering rapid development of nanotechnologies. A
new NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) has been
established that combines both research and a state-of-the-art
nanofabrication and nanometrology user facility.
While a complementary NIST initiative will provide important
groundwork in measuring environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks
of nanotechnology, this research initiative will build on recent NIST
advances in developing nanoscale science and technology by:
<bullet> devising ways to measure strength, stress, strain,
optical, and electronic properties of nanostructures to improve
processes and understanding of failure mechanisms;
<bullet> creating three-dimensional, high-resolution imaging
methods that reveal details of structure, chemical composition,
and manufacturing defects and allow researchers to view
nanostructures as they interact with their environment;
<bullet> simulating nanoscale phenomena with computer models
to allow economical development of production methods for
complex nanodevices; and
<bullet> pushing existing computer technology to its ultimate
limit by developing measurements and standards that support
``ultimate CMOS,'' or the development of current transistor
technology to its technological limit.
Innovations in Measurement Science (+$3M)
As new science and technology areas emerge, NIST must quickly
develop the measurement methods needed to support them. The Innovations
in Measurement Science Program is one of NIST's primary mechanisms for
keeping pace with the measurement requirements needed for innovation in
U.S. industry.
Established in 1979, the program supports high-risk, leading-edge
research projects that anticipate industry needs and develop
measurement science for the next generation of technology. At some
point in their careers, all three of NIST's Nobel laureates have had
their research funded by this program. Current NIST expertise in
quantum information science, fuel cell science, three dimensional
chemical imaging, and many other areas important to national priorities
were launched with ``measurement innovations'' funding.
This initiative will expand the scope and nature of projects
selected for the Innovations in Measurement Science Program to allow
this program to keep better pace with the evolving needs of industry
and science. Emphasis will be placed on the development of multi-
disciplinary research areas with the greatest potential for fostering
innovation.
The NIST Laboratories carefully evaluate the technical merit,
potential impact, and staff qualifications for detailed research
proposals submitted by the NIST technical staff. Successful proposals
are funded for five years-ensuring enough time for the innovative
measurement science approach to be developed-and are reviewed
throughout the program to ensure satisfactory progress.
Enabling the Use of Hydrogen as a Fuel (+$4M)
Hydrogen offers the possibility of lowering the impact of motor
vehicles on the environment, and reducing our nation's dependence on
foreign oil. While the burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide
and other emissions harmful to the environment, hydrogen fuel can be
made from many energy sources, including renewables.
Technical challenges need to be overcome to make hydrogen-powered
vehicles more practical and economical. Hydrogen can embrittle metals
and other container materials, is highly combustible, and requires
storage containers larger than those for other fuels with equivalent
energy. Moreover, the technical infrastructure must be developed to
ensure safe production, storage, distribution, delivery, and equitable
sale of hydrogen in the marketplace.
Expansion of research efforts at NIST is essential to achieving
widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel. NIST has been a leading provider
of data on the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen for more
than 50 years. It has statutory responsibility under the Pipeline
Safety Act of 2002 to develop research and standards for gas pipeline
integrity, safety, and reliability. It is the lead U.S. agency for
weights and measures of vehicle fuels, and the distribution and sale of
hydrogen will require entirely new systems for ensuring equity in the
marketplace.
NIST's Center for Neutron Research is a premier facility for real-
time, three-dimensional imaging of hydrogen in operating fuel cells.
Using the unique resources developed at this NIST facility will help
reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen production, storage,
and use. NIST expertise will be essential for making fuel cells less
costly and more reliable.
Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain Integration (+$1M)
America's large manufacturers are globally distributed enterprises
that rely on a system of small manufacturers, parts suppliers,
shippers, and raw materials producers organized in extended ``supply
chains.'' Using the auto industry as an example, the average car has
more than 15,000 parts coming from 5,000 manufacturers that are made to
the precise specifications of the auto company and must arrive on time.
Production costs are no longer the major cost component in these
global supply chains-the dominant cost is in the engineering and
business activities, which depend critically upon clear and error-free
exchange of information among partners.
Inefficiencies and needless roadblocks in the exchange of product
design and business data in manufacturing and construction are
estimated to cost the U.S. economy more than $25 billion per year.
Small manufacturers are particularly hurt by these problems, but they
affect the competitiveness of entire industries.
In the 1980s NIST pioneered work in developing early open standards
for data exchange. Under this initiative, NIST will conduct a much more
extensive, wide-ranging, and technologically advanced program. Working
closely with U.S. manufacturers to develop seamless data transactions
throughout global supply chains, NIST will work to shorten the design-
to-manufacturing cycle, improve quality, and lower costs for large and
small U.S. firms.
Major goals will include:
<bullet> creating ``roadmaps'' for the development of open
standards for enterprise integration in target industry
sectors;
<bullet> developing validation and conformance tests to help
ensure the performance of these standards as well as their
proper use; and
<bullet> ensuring the standards are integrated and consistent
with developing international standards and easily available to
small- and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers.
II. CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES (CRF)
Boosting U.S. Science and Engineering Capacity and Capability (+$63.7M)
JILA Expansion: Preparing the Next Generation of Physicists (+$13M)
Space has run out at one of the Nation's most valuable training
grounds of top scientific talent. JILA, a joint institute of NIST and
the University of Colorado at Boulder, has produced three Nobel
Laureates and two MacArthur Fellows, all named in this decade alone.
JILA researchers are leaders in atomic, molecular, and optical (AMO)
science, a field that the National Academies says is ``key to training
our best scientists, engineers, and technical professionals.''
JILA is already over capacity, and the situation is getting worse.
The existing group of 28 JILA research scientists could train
approximately one-third more postdocs and student researchers, but
there is literally no place for them to work. An expert external
assessment of the JILA laboratories warned that this shortage of space
threatened JILA's ability to retain and recruit world-class scientists.
NIST proposes a limited expansion of the laboratory and office
space at JILA. With the expansion costing an estimated $27.5M, NIST
would contribute $13M in FY 2009 and an additional $9.5M in FY 2010.
The University of Colorado will contribute $5M in funding, as well as
land and infrastructure services such as electricity, chilled water,
and steam.
The funding would add approximately 4,610 square meters (49,600
square feet) of new space. Improving the laboratory facilities at JILA
will ensure that the current world-class research staff maximizes its
potential for both training a new generation of scientists and
producing the nanoscale manipulation tools needed to keep U.S. industry
at the forefront of science. The expansion is expected to increase the
number of AMO grad students at JILA by approximately 50 percent.
Because JILA produces five to 10 percent of all AMO science Ph.D.s in
the United States per year, this will step up significantly the
Nation's production of scientists in this important field.
NIST Center for Neutron Research Expansion (NCNR) and Reliability
Improvements (+$2M, added to a previously funded initiative)
Serving more scientists and engineers (over 2,100 annually) than
all other U.S. neutron research facilities combined, the NIST Center
for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the Nation's leading neutron facility.
The NCNR is especially valued for its ``cold'' (low-energy) neutron
source, which greatly increases the utility of the neutron beam,
particularly in biotech and materials research.
Although the NCNR is widely regarded as the most cost-effective and
efficiently managed neutron facility in the United States, presently
this critical research tool cannot possibly meet the demands placed on
it.
This is a planned increase in funding for the NCNR Expansion
Initiative, begun in 2007. When completed, this five-year project will
provide:
<bullet> a new generation of world-class cold neutron
instruments directly supporting the needs of science and
industry;
<bullet> more than a 30 percent increase in the overall
measurement capacity;
<bullet> the ability to serve at least 500 additional
researchers each year; and
<bullet> increased operational efficiency.
The FY 2009 funding request supports the next phase of the NCNR
expansion to initiate installation, testing, and commissioning of the
new neutron instruments (such as spectrometers). These instruments will
bring new neutron measurement capability to U.S. researchers by either
exceeding the capabilities of current instruments by more than a factor
of a hundred, or by providing capabilities that are not currently
available in the United States.
In FY 2009, the project will focus on:
<bullet> installation of new neutron spectrometers and neutron
beamlines;
<bullet> modification of beamlines and beamline shielding;
<bullet> modification of some existing instruments affected by
new beamlines; and
<bullet> testing of new beamlines and instruments.
Complete State-of-the-Art Laboratory Space at NIST's Boulder, Colorado
Campus Building 1 Extension (+$43.5M)
The Building 1 Extension (B1E) will provide the environmental
control needed to reliably measure and manipulate atomic-scale
phenomena in order to further enable 21st century technologies.
Improvement in environmental conditions within NIST's Boulder, Colorado
research laboratories is required to make further progress in
measurements related to high-frequency electronics, advanced materials
characterized at the atomic level, sub-cellular forces, timing
accuracy, and other areas.
As the final funding request for a three-year program, the $43.5M
proposed in the FY 2009 budget will complete state-of-the-art
laboratory space that will meet the stringent environmental conditions
required for 21st century scientific advances. With a total cost of
$77.2M, the Building 1 Extension is the most cost-effective approach to
enabling world-class measurement science in support of some of the
country's most important economic sectors.
Construction of the B1E will dramatically enhance NIST's
measurement capability and will directly support the needs of industry
and academia. Some of the anticipated impacts include the ability to:
<bullet> make precision frequency measurements above 100 GHz
(100 billion cycles per second), which are required for
advanced commercial electronics, military systems, and homeland
security;
<bullet> measure and perform research on the properties of
materials at the single-atom level needed for the development
of quantum and nanotechnologies;
<bullet> measure forces below 10-12 newtons (one billionth the
weight of a feather) to understand the inner workings of cells
and to apply this measurement capability to other physical
systems; and
<bullet> make timing measurements with uncertainties reduced
to one part in 10-18 (the equivalent of one second in 30
billion years), enabling whole new generations of position,
navigation, and guidance systems.
Safety, Capacity, Maintenance and Major Repairs (SCMMR) (+$5.2M)
Aging and deteriorating buildings and infrastructure threaten
NIST's ability to meet the needs of the Nation's scientific and
industrial enterprise. NIST maintains about 50 specialized
laboratories, offices, and support buildings at its two major sites in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder, Colorado, as well as critical
infrastructure in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Kauai, Hawaii. Most of
the Gaithersburg structures were built in the 1960s, and the Boulder
facilities are a decade older.
Since 1995, the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF)
appropriation has funded building construction and the safety,
capacity, maintenance, and major repairs (SCMMR) of NIST's physical
plant. Although recent increases to SCMMR have led to improvements in
these facilities and infrastructure, the current state of NIST
facilities--whether measured in terms of safety, capacity, or state of
repair--remains a serious impediment to NIST's mission. Funding for
renovations has not kept pace with NIST needs. The failure rate of
major building systems such as air-handling systems and piping systems
has increased dramatically in the last five years. NIST's aging
facilities and their extensive backlog of deferred maintenance and
repairs have resulted in lost productivity and increased costs.
These problems are not confined to the most advanced research and
development projects. For example, the relatively straightforward NIST
task of calibrating precision pressure gauges is the critical first
step in a national measurement chain that ensures the accuracy of
airplane altimeters and supports a wide variety of manufacturing
sectors, including semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. However,
carrying out this process has been limited by vibration problems, poor
temperature control, and a pervasive black grit distributed by a 40-
year-old air-conditioning, ventilation, and heating system.
Based on independent architectural and engineering reviews and in
conjunction with the need to maintain world-class research facilities,
NIST proposes to target the most critical SCMMR projects. These areas
include repair and replacement of aging mechanical and electrical
systems removal of hazardous material, including remediation of
asbestos; structural repairs and replacements; and efforts to ensure
accessibility in all NIST facilities.
III. Industrial Technology Services.
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) ($4.0M)
The requested $4M provides the orderly end to federal funding for
the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The
elimination of federal funds to the local centers may have to be
compensated through a combination of increased fees derived from the
benefits accrued by individual companies and cost-savings in the
operations of the centers.
Technology Innovation Program (TIP) ($0)
No funds for TIP are requested in the President's FY 2009 budget.
Anticipated prior year recoveries will be sufficient to phase out the
program.
Summary
For 107 years, NIST research has been critical to our nation's
innovation and competitiveness. The increased funding in the
President's FY 2009 budget for the NIST core will directly support
technological advances in broad sectors of the economy that will quite
literally define the 21st century--as well as improve the safety and
quality of life for all our citizens.
Today, more than at any other time in history, technological
innovation and progress depend on NIST's unique skills and
capabilities. Helping the U.S. to drive and take advantage of the
increased pace of technological change is a top priority for NIST.
The new technologies that are determining the global winners in the
early 21st century--including nanotechnology, information technology,
and advanced manufacturing--rely on NIST-developed tools to measure,
evaluate, and standardize. The technologies that emerge as a result of
NIST's development of these tools are enabling U.S. companies to
innovate and remain competitive.
Technology-based innovation remains one of the Nation's most
important competitive advantages, but that advantage is in danger of
being lost. The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the
enactment of the America COMPETES Act are bold initiatives to maintain
this advantage. They have cast a spotlight on NIST's critical
importance to U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation. To ensure
that NIST programs deliver the highest impact, the Institute, working
with our stakeholders in Congress, industry, academia, and other
government agencies, will continue to identify the most critical
measurement, standards, and technological challenges. We look forward
to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee,
throughout this process.
Biography for James M. Turner
Dr. James M. Turner is the Acting Director and Deputy Director of
the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). Turner became NIST Acting Director on September 3,
2007. As Acting Director, Turner provides high-level oversight and
direction for NIST.
Prior to joining NIST on April 16, 2007, Turner served as the
Assistant Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Risk Reduction in the
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. In
that position, he was responsible for major projects in Russia to
permanently shutdown their last three weapons-grade plutonium-
production reactors. He also worked with foreign governments and
international agencies to reduce the consequences of nuclear accidents
by strengthening their capability to respond to nuclear emergencies.
Prior to that assignment, Turner held several senior management
posts at DOE concerned with laboratory oversight and with nuclear
safety and the safeguarding of nuclear weapons both here and abroad.
He holds degrees in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (Ph.D.) and Johns Hopkins University (B.A.), and taught for
five years as an Associate Professor of Physics and Engineering at
Morehouse College.
Among other honors, he has received the U.S. Government
Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service, three times received
the U.S. Department of Energy Exceptional Service Award, and earned the
Secretary of Energy Gold Award and the National Nuclear Security
Administration's Gold Medal. Dr. Turner is an active member of the
American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American
Nuclear Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, ASTM, and the Council on Foreign Relations, IEEE, Phi Beta
Kappa, Sigma Xi, and the World Affairs Council.
Dr. Turner is a native of Washington, DC, is married, and has five
children and one grandchild. He and his wife, Paulette, reside in
Olney, Maryland.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Turner. Dr. Serum,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES W. SERUM, CHAIRMAN, NIST VISITING
COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY; PRESIDENT, SCITEK VENTURES
LLC
Dr. Serum. Thank you, Chairman Wu, and Members of the House
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the 2009 budget proposal for NIST. My name is James Serum,
and I am testifying on behalf of VCAT, the Visiting Committee
on Advanced Technology. I am President of SciTek Ventures, and
was recently elected as Chairperson for the VCAT.
I have been asked to provide feedback on the VCAT's
perspective for NIST's current and future strategic
investments, the 3 year programmatic plan, and the
effectiveness of cross-laboratory program coordination within
NIST.
We believe that NIST is performing high quality, state of
the art measurement and technology research. Their equipment
and facilities provide capability for world-class measurements
of chemical, biological, and physical parameters, and their
technical staff is highly competent.
VCAT has long believed that NIST is dramatically
underfunded to effectively accomplish its designated mission.
We strongly support the proposed 22 percent increase in NIST's
2009 core budget, and we support the proposed new initiatives
for nanotechnology, innovations in bioscience, cyber security,
and optical communication and computing. We support the
established priorities for information technology and the
research programs in quantum computing. The U.S. is lagging in
broadband capacity, and better data is needed for access to and
use of high capacity data communication capabilities. NIST can
make a significant contribution in developing metrics that
measure these parameters.
We support the proposed additional funding for bioscience.
However, the amount of NIST research dollars currently
dedicated to bioscience and healthcare is minute relative to
the greater than $2 trillion annual expenditure for this
industrial sector. The subcommittee considers the current
projects well managed, but in general, we do not see an overall
strategic plan to provide direction and prioritization. We
encourage them to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for
bioscience and healthcare in 2008.
A new Center for Nanoscience and Technology, CNST, was
launched at NIST during 2007, to conduct nanoscale research,
and to provide nanofabrication capabilities for both internal
and external customers. The environmental health and safety of
nanomaterials represents a major issue to this industry. CNST
has established this as a priority, and they have launched a
cross-laboratory program to investigate and develop measurement
tools to address this issue. We caution NIST to partner
appropriately with toxicology experts and organizations, rather
than trying to develop this application knowledge base in-
house.
As the facility gears up, it is necessary for CNST to
develop new external industrial partnerships. We have reviewed
the current CNST industrial interactions, and believe that they
recognize the importance of developing these external
partnerships.
Overall, the three-year programmatic plan represents a
comprehensive strategic plan that reflects clearly the goals of
the organization, its core competencies, current research
priorities, as well as an identification of future measurement
needs, and a discussion about how technology priorities will be
established in the future.
During recent years, VCAT has consistently recommended an
improvement in strategic planning, particularly a strong,
demonstrated link between strategic plans, priority setting,
and selecting and staffing projects. The three-year plan
demonstrates that their strategic planning process has
significantly improved, and appears to be a good foundation for
better strategic dialogue between NIST staff and the VCAT. We
encourage them to continue their efforts to implement effective
strategic planning throughout all of their departments and
laboratories.
We are pleased with their proactive behavior on getting
their stakeholders and the voice of the customer into their
planning and prioritization process. Projects such as the U.S.
Measurement System have identified more than 700 measurement
needs across 11 industries. We encourage NIST management to
continue to evaluate and integrate these diverse lists of
measurement needs into more focused programs, and a visible
process for establishing priorities.
It is evident that NIST has become much more proactive in
reaching across organizational boundaries for access to
innovative ideas, technology, and application expertise. We
applaud this effort, and observe that it is becoming an
integral part of the NIST culture. The development of new kind
of partnerships is necessary for the success in addressing new
technologies. Applications expertise that does not exist within
NIST should often be accessed through partnerships in the
future.
The Hollings Marine Laboratory in South Carolina represents
an outstanding partnership with NOAA to gain applications
expertise in marine biology. We believe that this type of
relationship can serve as a model for future partnerships,
where applications expertise in a particular field is needed.
The VCAT 2007 Annual Report provides much more detail
regarding our findings and recommendations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Serum follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. Serum
Thank you Chairman Wu and Members of the House Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation for the opportunity to testify before you
today on matters related to the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget
proposal for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and
NIST's recently submitted Three-year Programmatic Plan.
My name is James W. Serum and I am testifying on behalf of VCAT,
The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, an advisory committee to
the Director of NIST. I am the President of Scitek Ventures, a science
and technology consulting firm focused on helping young companies
commercialize innovative ideas and early stage technology. I have been
deeply engaged in developing and commercializing measurement
technologies and applications for over 40 years, having spent most of
my career with Hewlett-Packard Company. Upon retirement in 1999, I
founded an information technology business, Viaken Systems Inc. and a
technology consulting firm, Scitek Ventures LLC, both focused on
measurement systems. I have been associated with NIST for the past 10
years, having served first as a member of the National Research Council
Assessment Panel for the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory
(CSTL), and, since 2004, as an elected member of NIST's Visiting
Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT). I was recently elected to
chair that organization for the next two years.
About VCAT: The NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology
(VCAT) was established in its present form by the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 and was updated by the America COMPETES
Act. The VCAT charter includes reviewing and making recommendations
regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget and its
programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set
forth by the President and the Congress. The 2007 annual report covers
the topics reviewed and discussed from the March 2007 meeting through
the February 2008 meeting.
The Committee reviews the Institute's strategic direction,
performance and policies, and provides the Secretary of Commerce,
Congress, and other stakeholders with information on the value and
relevance of NIST to the U.S. science and technology base and to the
economy. Over the past year, the Committee has been active in assessing
NIST's progress in the following:
<bullet> Strategic direction and performance
<bullet> Infrastructure and process in support of strategic
needs
<bullet> Outreach--Assessing and responding to external
drivers
<bullet> Organizing and executing with excellence
Throughout the year, the Committee seeks to cover a significant
portion of NIST programs through direct discussion with NIST leaders,
scientists and engineers. Reactions and observations are discussed
candidly with the NIST representatives and other guests at each
meeting. This feedback is used to seed continuous improvement in key
areas in the overall operation. At most meetings, the Committee also
visits various NIST laboratories and discusses the research projects
directly with the technical staff. These laboratory tours help the
Committee assess the relevancy of measurement technology research and
NIST's progress against the strategic plan and the development of the
NIST infrastructure.
Members of the Committee have careers in industry and in academia,
and are selected solely on the basis of established records of
distinguished service and eminence in their fields: research,
engineering, business and other fields relevant to the NIST mission.
Appointed by the NIST Director for staggered three-year terms, the
members have diverse backgrounds and provide a representative cross-
section of traditional and emerging U.S. industries.
In 2007, the VCAT created three subcommittees for Bioscience/
Healthcare, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology as allowed by
its charter, in order to more thoroughly explore and understand NIST's
programs, competencies, organizational effectiveness and alignment with
the industrial segment ``customer'' need. These subcommittees were
chosen not only because of the size of the industry and impact on the
U.S. Economy but also, because each one cuts across a wide segment of
the broad spectrum of U.S. industry. The VCAT 2007 annual report
provides the foundation for my testimony in this hearing.
I have been asked today to provide testimony on the VCAT's
perspective related to NIST's current and future strategic investments.
This includes our assessment of the proposed budget for 2009, alignment
of the budget priorities with key technology investment areas, the NIST
strategic planning process and the effectiveness of cross-laboratory
coordination within NIST.
Importance of Measurements to U.S. Industrial Competitiveness:
We believe that accurate and precise measurements and measurement
technology provide the underpinning for economic success and
competitiveness in almost all U.S. industries--whether it is for the
Healthcare Sector, Information Technology, Homeland Security or
traditional manufacturing. For example, the future economics and
effectiveness of our health care industry depends on developing a
thorough understanding of the cause of diseases and the development of
specific therapeutics to treat those diseases. Only a few short years
ago we hailed the announcement of the identification of the human
genome. Yet today, inaccurate DNA measurements lead to incorrect and
confusing conclusions about genetic causes of disease. Dramatic
improvements need to be achieved relative to manufacture of DNA chips
and application processes for interpreting the results from DNA chips.
NIST can play a key role in developing standards and technologies for
both DNA and protein measurements to enable and accelerate this
critical industrial segment. A NIST report (The Economic Roles and
Impacts of Technology Infrastructure, Gregory Tassey, 2008) describes
many examples of the value of measurement technology in many industrial
sectors.
VCAT General Observations about NIST:
We believe that NIST is performing high quality, state-of-the-art
measurement and technology research. Their equipment in general is
current and provides for world class measurement of chemical,
biological and physical parameters. Their staff is highly competent,
and is validated through many peer awards including three Nobel Prizes
since 1997. NIST is recognized world wide for its leadership in helping
to develop industry standards and they are sought after to provide
global leadership for international standards organizations. NIST has
put a much-needed emphasis on its strategic planning in recent years,
and it is the Committee's view that they have shown considerable
improvement. We observe that the quality of strategic planning
continues to vary by organizational unit and program within NIST. We
also observe that NIST has strong proactive programs to gain customer
input from various industry sectors in which it is involved.
We recognize that NIST faces an immense challenge to balance its
spending, resource allocation and research prioritization while serving
such a broad group of industrial sectors from cement manufacturing to
newer industry segments such as biotechnology, information technology
and nanotechnology.
NIST FY 2009 Budget Proposal:
The VCAT has long believed that NIST is dramatically under funded
to effectively accomplish its designated mission. The final 2008
budget--which was well below the levels requested by the President for
the NIST laboratories--has led to setbacks in initiating important new
programs in bioscience and other areas. We are pleased that the 2009
proposed budget increases--if funded by Congress--will allow these
programs to get funded and launched. The development and maintenance of
NIST standards have proven critical to the ongoing success of a very
broad group of industrial sectors. Existing standards and reference
materials need to be maintained at significant expense while
simultaneously developing new measurement technologies and standards
for industrial segments vital to our nation's competitiveness such as
IT, Nanotechnology and Bioscience/Healthcare. NIST needs to be
aggressive in finding new ways to maintain the credibility and
integrity of existing standards and materials. Their NIST Traceable
Reference Materials (or NTRM) program is an excellent example of
possible approaches.
The VCAT is pleased with the proposed 22 percent increase in NIST's
2009 core budget. We support the proposed new initiatives for
Nanotechnology EH&S ($12M), Measurement Innovations in Bioscience
($10M), National Cybersecurity Initiative ($5M) and Optical
Communication and Computing ($5.8M), along with the other initiatives
that were pending in FY 2008 and did not get funded--yet still are
critical.
The ability to perform state-of-the-art measurement research
depends on state-of-the-art facilities. Building environments related
to vibration, temperature, humidity and environmental pollutants can
prevent necessary measurements to be developed or standards enacted.
VCAT applauds the investment in new and renovated facilities during the
past several years and we support the continued facilities investment
at Boulder, JILA and the Neutron Research Center (NCNR) in the 2009
proposed budget.
In summary, the VCAT strongly supports the proposed budget increase
for NIST as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative and the
America COMPETES Act.
VCAT Focus on Information Technology, Bioscience/Healthcare and
Nanotechnology:
As stated earlier, in 2007 VCAT established three subcommittees on
Bioscience/Healthcare, Nanotechnology, and Information Technology in
order to more thoroughly explore NIST's programs and research in these
very important technology and industry sectors. The following comments
reflect a summary of our findings.
Information Technology--Key priorities include cyber security
(a five-fold increase in malicious software was detected in
2007 compared to 2006), technology for sustainable ``green''
data centers for lower power consumption and less water
cooling, standards for data archiving that enable
representation of complex information in easily accessible, low
capacity formats. We emphasize the importance of information
technology to a wide number of industrial sectors including
health care (electronic medical records, etc.), nanotechnology
and biotechnology.
VCAT strongly endorses NIST's research program in quantum
computing and communication. NIST can make a significant
contribution in developing metrics that reveal computing and
communications capacity, security, compliance and reliability.
The U.S. is lagging in broadband capacity and better data is
needed on national access to and use of high capacity data
communication capabilities. The IT subcommittee recommends that
NIST consider possible measurements and metrics to assist in
the assessment of broadband access to Internet and related
services in the United States.
The subcommittee recommends that NIST consider investigating
computing requirements and algorithms used for climate and
natural disaster modeling with the objective of validating
them.
Bioscience/Healthcare--NIST has a long history of developing
measurements and standards for the health care industry when in
1918 NBS launched a dental materials group and in the 1920s,
established X-ray radiation standards for imaging technicians.
Some of the current research in bioimaging has been a result of
the sustained effort in this research area. However, the amount
of NIST research dollars dedicated to Bioscience/Healthcare is
minute relative to the greater than $2 Trillion dollar annual
expenditure for this industrial sector. The need for
development of advanced measurement technology to support the
U.S. Bioscience/Healthcare industries is vital. Despite the
need and the enormous size of the industrial sector, there is
no laboratory specifically devoted to supporting the
bioscience/health care industry. Research projects are limited
in scope and scale and are individually located in laboratories
across many different sites. We believe that the current
projects are well managed but in general we do not see an
overall strategic plan to provide direction and prioritization.
We believe that the staff has recognized these challenges and
is making considerable effort to coordinate and cross fertilize
their bioscience research projects. The bioscience/health care
subcommittee is concerned about continuing under funding of
this sector in the Three-year Programmatic Plan. The NIST
management team has identified five areas of focus in 2007:
Biospectroscopy, Cell and Tissue Measurement, DNA Technology,
Structural Biology and Quantitative Imaging. While we support
these program areas, most lack sufficient funding resources and
applications expertise to be successful or to have a major
impact. NIST has identified Bioimaging as one of its key
opportunities. This is appropriate and has the potential to
have a major impact on disease understanding and development of
effective therapeutics in the future.
We applaud the America COMPETES Act for doubling the NIST
budget in the future. NIST staff is becoming quite proactive in
gaining the ``voice of the customer'' related to prioritization
of research programs for this industry segment. A NIST
conference is scheduled in October with the specific purpose of
gaining expert feedback on measurement priorities for
innovation in bioscience. The NIST staff and Bioscience/
Healthcare subcommittee worked in excellent harmony during 2007
to focus on priorities and future measurement needs. We would
like to see a comprehensive strategic plan developed for
Bioscience/Healthcare in 2008.
Nanotechnology--The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
provides the foundation for NIST's work in this area. The U.S.
Government spends over $1 billion dollars annually in these
efforts. Within NIST, a new Center for Nano Science and
Technology (CNST) has been established and the VCAT
subcommittee has reviewed NIST's efforts as part of the overall
NNI activity. The component areas in this initiative include;
nanoscale phenomena and processes, nanoscale devices,
instrumentation research and metrology and standards for
nanotechnology. A major U.S. issue relates to the environmental
health and safety of nanomaterials. In response to widespread
concerns about the responsible development of nanotechnology as
well as a recommendation by VCAT, NIST initiated in 2007 a
program to develop standards and metrics associated with the
responsible development of nanotechnology. We support this
program and caution them to develop appropriate toxicology
applications partnerships rather than bringing this expertise
inside. Although the Nanotechnology programs are highly
distributed, it is VCAT's assessment that they are well run and
well coordinated.
Concerning CNST, we find that with respect to the
Nanofabrication facility as well as the research programs
residing in CNST, there has been significant progress in
planning and execution of both elements. The acquisition,
installation and commissioning of the major equipment for CNST
is essentially complete. Approximately 85 percent of the
planned technical personnel have been hired or authorized under
existing funding. Completion of the personnel and equipment
ramp-ups will require restoration of the funds deleted from the
FY 2008 budget to at least the level in the President's
proposed 2009 budget. The Nanofab facility is intended to serve
both internal and external users. As the facility is gearing
up, its primary users remain internal and academic. A person
has been recently hired to run the new facility with one of his
specific responsibilities to grow industry representation among
its users. We have reviewed the industrial interactions to date
and the goals for establishing external partnerships. We
believe that CNST management recognizes the importance and
priority of developing these external partnerships. Still
developing are NIST internal partnerships, which involve the
following OU's: MSEL (Nanomagnetics; thin film nanostructure,
bi-stable switch; probe beams); EEEL (Nanomagnetics; low noise
sensors; theory; magnetization dynamics) ITL (Nanomagnetics;
domain properties); CSTL (Atomic Scale Measurement; atom
switching dynamics); PL, (Nanofabrication; edge roughness).
Other connections and projects are under consideration. A
Nanotechnology Coordinating Council is being established within
NIST and we recommend that this council work to enhance
collaborations through all relevant OU's involved with
nanotechnology.
VCAT assessment of the Three-year Programmatic Plan:
The foundation of an effective strategic plan is a clear mission
and an accurate identification of the Core Competencies of the
organization. NIST has a concise mission statement focused on
innovation and industrial competitiveness through measurement science,
technology and standards. The organization has appropriately
articulated its competencies as measurement science, rigorous
traceability, and development and use of standards.
The VCAT committee did not have access to the Three-year
Programmatic Plan with sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate and
critique its content this year. However, the following comments reflect
the consensus feedback of VCAT members at its last meeting plus my
personal feedback as the VCAT chairperson having reviewed the document
more completely following the last VCAT meeting.
Overall, the Three-year Programmatic Plan represents a
comprehensive strategic document that reflects clearly the goals of the
organization, its core competencies, current research priorities as
well as identification of future measurement needs and a discussion
about how technology priorities will be established in the future. NIST
has improved significantly in its overall strategic planning process as
evidenced by this document. However, the process is not yet implemented
consistently throughout the organization.
The Committee endorses the four pillars of strategic planning found
in the three-year strategic plan:
<bullet> Enhanced Stakeholder outreach and identification of
critical measurement and technology challenges;
<bullet> Strategic, multi-year investment framework;
<bullet> Development of infrastructure to optimize and support
the Nation's technological and organizational innovation--and
staff/equipment to succeed;
<bullet> Rigorous evaluation of all NIST investments.
As stated previously, The NIST organization is constantly faced
with the formidable challenge of establishing appropriate program and
technology priorities across an extremely broad area of industries and
technologies. They have identified stakeholders both within the
government (OMB, OSTP, PCAST, NSTC and DOC) and across industries that
have or can help establish those priorities related to U.S. innovation
and industrial competitiveness. In addition, NIST has proactively
conducted workshops and programs such as USMS (United States
Measurement System) to gain feedback on the critical needs for
measurement in U.S. Industry. Those have led to more than 700
measurement needs being identified. We encourage NIST management to
continue to evaluate and integrate these diverse lists of measurement
needs into more focused programs with adequate goals and deliverables
and a visible process for establishing priorities.
The Committee agrees with the Core Competencies identified in the
three-year plan:
<bullet> Measurement science
<bullet> Rigorous measurement traceability
<bullet> Development and use of standards
We agree with NIST that biotechnology, advanced nano materials and
IT infrastructure and communications are areas in which strategic
investments are needed. We also endorse the report's detailing of the
construction and renovation needs described in the appendix.
We strongly endorse NIST's proposed project evaluation strategy, in
particular the seven Heilmeier questions listed below from the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) adapted to NIST's work. We do
not currently see these strategic questions being effectively
implemented throughout the organization:
<bullet> What is the problem and why is it hard?
<bullet> How is it solved today and by whom?
<bullet> What is the new technical idea and why can we succeed
now?
<bullet> Why should NIST do this?
<bullet> What is the impact if successful and who would care?
<bullet> How will you measure progress?
<bullet> How much and how long?
We believe that the current and pending budget initiatives to:
Strengthen Core Competencies, Address Rapidly Developing Technology,
Expand the Frontier of Measurement Science and Meeting Critical
National Needs, are appropriate. We support technology measurement
advancements in optical computing and communication, nanotechnology,
and alternative energy research. NIST has identified quantum
information science, nanotechnology and Bioscience as High Risk, High
Reward areas of focus. Members of the Bioscience Subcommittee consider
Bioscience/Healthcare research as a critical priority and would
encourage a significantly higher investment in the short-term than is
currently proposed.
The Committee is satisfied that NIST has a vigorous process for
consulting with customers, industry and academia for purposes of
formulating its strategic and tactical plans.
VCAT supports NIST's commitment to phasing in and phasing out of
programs and agrees with NIST's investment posture in quantum science,
atomic, molecular and optical physics.
Finally, we concur with NIST that it must be responsive to mandates
(e.g., Help America Vote Act) and to other national needs in
manufacturing, energy demand and supply, climate change measurement,
modeling and analysis and safety in commerce. The Committee notes the
extensive collaboration undertaken by NIST and recommends continued
support for these wide-ranging activities.
The VCAT endorses the articulation of the issues surrounding
Nanotechnology Measurement Science and the movement of Nanotechnology
from discovery to manufacture. The importance of this field to both
U.S. technological leadership and industrial competitiveness is clearly
described. The negative impact of the 2008 budget on the important role
NIST must play in the responsible development of nanotechnology cannot
be overemphasized. We agree with the assessment of the importance of
enhancing the NIST Center for Neutron Research but suggest that the
case could be even stronger by enhancing the important symbiosis
between NCNR and CNST.
NIST Strategic Planning, Technology Prioritization Processes and
Organizational Effectiveness:
NIST has a clear mission and understands its core competencies.
They recognize the importance of getting stakeholder and customer
feedback into their processes for establishing priorities for
technology and research programs and we believe that they have
incorporated effective methods to gain the ``voice of the customer.''
We commend them for working to make this a part of the NIST culture but
observe that these practices are not yet uniform throughout the
organization.
During recent years, VCAT has recommended an improvement in
strategic planning, particularly a strong demonstrated link between
strategic plans, priority setting and selecting and staffing projects.
Although NIST has developed strategic plans such as the NIST 2010
document and the USMS document, the Committee has not been able to
fully embrace and evaluate the programs and priorities within an
overall strategic framework. We would attribute this at least in part
to the lack of sufficiently clear links between strategy, programs and
the prioritization processes. The current Three-year Programmatic Plan
appears to be a good foundation for better strategic dialogue between
NIST staff and VCAT.
Due to NIST's expertise in measurement systems and standards, they
are often called upon to initiate ``ad hoc'' studies for the benefit of
the Nation, such as the study of the World Trade Center disaster and
the Help America Vote Act. We support these efforts and recognize their
importance but they have the capability of distracting from the
strategic mission and vision of the organization. Care must be taken to
effectively manage external influences and requests.
It is a always difficult for any organization to stop projects that
are no longer of critical priority or that are not producing expected
results in order to dedicate those resources and funds to more
important projects and priorities. NIST has been proactive in this area
and VCAT applauds these efforts. However, it is our belief that NIST
still has too many programs that are not sufficiently coordinated and
appropriately funded and staffed to achieve the desired projects and
program goals. We also recognize the need for independent pioneering
research of the type that provides the foundation for ``innovation in
U.S. industry'' and we do not propose that every project be managed and
coordinated within defined strategic programs. A balance is entirely
appropriate.
A ``metrology'' organization such as NIST should be able to
evaluate its own effectiveness in serving their customers. In recent
years, NIST has authorized independent outside evaluation studies to
determine the leverage of dollars invested in NIST compared to its
``value'' to a particular industrial segment. An average return on
investment (ROI) is reported to be 44:1, a very impressive number and a
number which we consider to be a conservative calculation. One may
conclude that at least those programs chosen for evaluation were highly
effective and chosen properly to effectively and efficiently benefit
U.S. industry.
Organizationally, NIST laboratories are primarily structured by
disciplines and technology including Information Technology, Chemical
Science and Technology, Physics, Electronics and Electrical
Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Materials Science and
Engineering, Neutron Research, and Building and Fire Research. No
structure can effectively reflect the rapidly changing needs in the
industries that NIST serves and the technologies and applications that
it needs to develop and standardize. It is our impression that
historically research projects were chosen within these ``silos''
according to perceived industry need and capability within the
laboratory. It is evident that NIST has now become proactive in
establishing NIST wide programs that require coordination across
organizational boundaries for access to innovative ideas, technology
and applications expertise. We also observe that cross fertilization of
ideas and expertise is becoming an integral part of the NIST culture.
We observe a new vigor for cross laboratory coordination for key
technology areas such as information technology, nanotechnology and
bioscience and we encourage it to become a pervasive behavior
throughout the organization. We urge caution, that as new initiatives
are launched, an appropriate assessment is made of necessary resources
and expertise and plans are developed to acquire that expertise or
partner within the organization or externally. There are numerous
examples of cross department coordination and the creation of external
partnerships to gain access to new technology and expertise needed to
accomplish their goals. An internal example is the new Nanotechnology
program to explore environmental, health and safety issues utilizing
resources from the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory but also
many of the other NIST labs. The Hollings Marine Laboratory in South
Carolina represents an outstanding partnership with NOAA to gain
applications expertise in marine biology. We believe that this type of
relationship can serve as a model for future partnerships where
applications expertise in a particular field is necessary, for example
in pursuing measurement solutions for the field of Diagnostics in
Health Care.
Research in Information Technology including optical computing and
communication, cyber security, and data structures permeate most
industrial sectors--so it is not surprising that each of the NIST
laboratories relies heavily on IT-related research in order to perform
their missions. The IT lab, with a strict focus on IT, has been
proactively coordinating its efforts across all relevant parts of the
NIST organization to assure efficiency and effectiveness of its
programs. (See IT subcommittee summary for more detail).
The VCAT 2007 Annual Report provides much more detail regarding our
findings and recommendations.
Biography of James W. Serum
Dr. Serum received a B.A. in Chemistry from Hope College and was
awarded a Ph.D. degree in Organic Chemistry in 1969 from the University
of Colorado. His doctorate research was directed toward studies in Mass
Spectrometry. Following his graduate studies, he taught and did
research at the University of Ghent, Belgium. He spent a year at Rice
University as a Welch Fellow, and then joined the staff at Cornell
University as Director of the National Institutes of Health High
Resolution Mass Spectrometry Facility.
Dr. Serum joined the Hewlett-Packard Company in 1973 as
Applications Chemist for Mass Spectrometry. Since then he has held a
number of management positions, including Technical Support Manager for
Mass Spectrometry in Europe (Paris, France); Marketing Manager for Mass
Spectrometry and Spectroscopy at the Scientific Instruments Division;
R&D Manager at the same division; and R&D Manager for the Avondale
Division (Laboratory Automation and Chromatography Instrumentation).
Since 1984 he has held business unit level positions as Operations
Manager for Laboratory Automation Systems, Automated Chemical Systems
Operation and Analytical Group Research & Development Manager. In 1992
Dr. Serum was named General Manager for Mass Spectrometry, Infrared,
and Protein Chemical Systems. He was the founder of HP's Bioscience
Products business. He has served as chairman of HP's Bioscience
Council, co-chairman of the Hewlett-Packard R&D Council and the
Pharmaceutical Business Council. He retired from Hewlett Packard in
August 1999 to co-found Viaken Systems Inc, where he was a Director and
served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Dr.
Serum has been a Venture Partner with Flagship Ventures and currently
serves as President of SciTek Ventures, a science and technology
consulting firm that he founded in 2002. In 2002 he was elected as a
lifetime National Associate of the National Academy of Sciences and in
2004 he was elected to serve on the Visiting Committee for Advanced
Technology of NIST. In 2005, Dr. Serum was named to the President's
Advisory Board for Advanced Technology at the Research Corporation. In
2008 he was elected Chairman of NIST's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology. Dr. Serum has served or currently serves as a member of the
Board of Directors for a number of emerging technology based companies.
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
<bullet> Member of National Academy of Sciences task force on
the Future of Analytical Chemistry in the U.S. (1986)
<bullet> Member of National Science Foundation task force to
Review Policy for Science Education in the U.S. (1987)
<bullet> Invited speaker at numerous educational meetings and
conferences on Science Education
<bullet> Past member of Hewlett-Packard Education Relations
Board
<bullet> Review Panel for Hewlett-Packard Grants Program for
Analytical Chemistry (1989-1992)
<bullet> Member of Science & Technology Board, College of
Letters and Science, James Madison University (1988-1993)
<bullet> Member of Board of Directors, Biotechnology Research
and Development Corporation (1988-1994)
<bullet> Member of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) technology assessment panel (1990-1992)
<bullet> Counselor (alt), Analytical Chemistry Division,
American Chemical Society (1992-1995)
<bullet> Member of the Board, Center for Photochemical
Sciences, Bowling Green State University (1994-Present)
<bullet> Member of ACS subcommittee for improvement of
chemistry curriculum (1994-1995)
<bullet> Member of National Research Council, Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education (1996-2001)
<bullet> Member of National Research Council, Committee on A
National Digital Library (1997)
<bullet> Chairperson, NRC Review committee on National Math
Standards (1999)
<bullet> Member & Vice Chairman of Board of Assessment for
Chemical Science & Technology Laboratory, NIST (1997-2001)
<bullet> Chairman of Board of Assessment for CSTL, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (2001-2003)
<bullet> Member National Research Council Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education (2002-2003)
<bullet> National Associate (life), National Academy of
Sciences (2002)
<bullet> Member of Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology,
NIST (2004-2009, Vice Chair 2007-2008, Chair 2008-2010)
<bullet> President's Advisory Board for Advanced Technology,
Research Corporation (2005-present)
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Serum. Dr. Good,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARY L. GOOD, GEORGE W. DONAGHEY PROFESSOR AND
DEAN, DONAGHEY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK
Dr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman Wu and
Congressman Ehlers, it is always nice to see friends that you
know from a long time ago. Really, it is a great opportunity to
be here today, and to say a few words about NIST.
I have turned in my report, and I won't read that, but I
will simply summarize the three pieces of it that I wanted to
make, and I will do that very quickly. First of all, all of you
already have talked about the quality and the significance of
NIST. I think that goes without saying. I don't think we even
have to defend that any more. I think everybody essentially
agrees with us on that.
And if you have to talk about the quality, we can talk
about Nobel Prize winners, and some of the other things that go
with NIST these days. And certainly, one point I would like to
make, and that is that the facility in Colorado absolutely is
long, long overdue. Congressman Ehlers knows we have been
trying to get that facility, I have forgotten how long ago.
Actually, very high quality work gets done there, and they
really need a first class facility to do it in, so I was very
pleased to see that as part of the budget.
But the only thing I would say with respect to how good
NIST is--if you want to really understand that, you go into
places where they don't have a NIST. I was invited down to
South Africa to review their National Bureau of Standards about
seven or eight years ago, and they were just then, as you know,
coming out of the apartheid era, and trying to really get
everything going, and they wanted people to come in, they had
an international committee come to review it, and to tell them
what they were doing right, and how to improve things, and it
was really a very eye opening experience, because things that
we in this country absolutely take for granted, and have been
doing for 100 years, they were trying to get installed. So, if
you really want to understand where we are, you can go
someplace where they are still now trying to do what really
NIST did in many ways at the turn of the century. These people
were still trying to get good standards for gasoline pumps in
the countryside, because people were being cheated, in terms of
the standards that they were using to measure it, if you like.
So, there is just no question about the quality, and I
won't spend very much more time on that. It clearly is the
metrology laboratory, the best in the world, and without it,
our enterprise would not work nearly as well as it does.
The second issue that I would like to speak to, I also was
very disappointed with the lack of any funding for MEP, and for
the Technology Initiation Program, and I would like to put a
little different spin on why I think those are so very
important, in addition to the ones that have already been
stated. First of all, it is very true that MEP has been
extraordinarily valuable to the states and to their
manufacturing industries, and particularly to the medium and
small manufacturers. They have been extraordinarily important
in keeping those people in the forefront of being innovative.
But today, NIST is being asked to look at new technologies
and nanotechnology, in the health sciences, they are looking
also at areas in biotechnology. All of these cutting edge
technologies that are there, they are being asked to do the
standards, and they are being asked to look at the
manufacturing facilities that go with those. So it is my
opinion that the MEP is the vehicle for getting NIST to
understand what is important in those small companies out there
today, because I was on the National Review Panel for the
National Initiative for Nanotechnology, and there are now
thousands of small companies out there who are making
nanoproducts. They have two major problems. One is, they don't
understand the manufacturing technologies very well. They don't
have standards in place. And secondly, they don't know very
much about the health effects at all. We have not done very
much about that yet, so if you could hook these state centers,
and have the NIST people who are working on those new, cutting
edge technologies, and have them mesh with the state centers,
and have those state centers out there helping these small
startup companies, everybody would win, because NIST would
begin to understand exactly what those companies need, and how
to use it. They could better prioritize what they are doing,
and secondly, certainly, the companies would win. So, this is
kind of a win-win situation that seems to me is just, it goes
without saying, is really very necessary.
So, I would argue that the MEP program is as important for
NIST as it is for the small manufacturers, if they are going to
really be at the cutting edge in the coming years.
I can make the same argument about TIP. If you pick the
right ones, and NIST has shown through the stewardship of ATP
that they can run a good program. They know how to do that.
They have done it quite well, so if they pick the right small
businesses to partner with, this is also one of the ways to
really understand what small startups and small businesses
need, so you can get your hands dirty. And one of the best ways
for technology transfer, as everybody knows, is to get your
hands dirty and be a part of the transfer.
So, I would argue that the omission of these two programs
is a real detriment to NIST, never mind to the detriment of the
manufacturing sector out there, as well as these small
businesses, if you like.
The second thing has to do with the strategic plan, and I
do agree with the Oversight Committee with respect to the
strategic plan. It is an excellent plan, in the sense that it
describes what the laboratories are doing in a very good way,
but it doesn't really have much to do with the strategic plan
over time. I would like to see NIST actually do a strategic
plan which drives what they do, rather than having just the
budget numbers drive what they do. I know that is asking a lot,
and I understand the--believe me, I understand the political
issues very well, but if I come in here from NIST with a real
strategic plan, I think you fellows in this committee and other
parts of the Congress would listen to that, and would move to
the direction that makes sense, so I would like to see them put
together a plan over the next three or four years which will
point out where they are going, and why they are going there,
and what portion of that they are going to--what is it that
they provide, and what do they have to do to actually have
interactions with the rest of the enterprise to make that work
appropriately.
So, I agree that the plan is excellent with respect to what
it says about what they are doing today, but I don't find it to
be much in the way of a strategic plan looking forward, and so,
I think they would have to go back and sort of redo that.
Also, I didn't see any real mention of the Baldrige, the
National Quality Award either, and I think that was a big
oversight. That really ought to be part of that strategic plan,
it seems to me, because that is one of those places where we
can really make some difference, and I think it has made a lot
of difference in the past. And I haven't seen much publicity
with respect to the Baldrige Award lately, and I would really
like to see that take a little bit more front and center, and
see that they have properly thought that one through.
And then, of course, the last thing is just to say that if
you look at NIST as a whole, it really is one of those
laboratories, and one of those activities in the United States,
that without it, and without it functioning really at a high
level, our competitive position is just not going to be
possible, because it really does have a lot to do with the
competitive position that we will have going forward.
So, I will be happy to answer questions, Mr. Chairman, but
thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Good follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary L. Good
Chairman Wu and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a great pleasure
for me to be able to testify on the behalf of NIST and its activities.
I regard NIST, as does most of the technology community (including the
technology based industry), as perhaps the most important national
laboratory because of its relevance to the long-term success of
American industry in the stimulation of innovation and contributions to
the competitiveness of the American enterprise. NIST has a long history
of providing the standards for commerce which allow for an orderly and
fair process for doing business, protecting the health of the
population, and promoting best practices in the complex enterprise
which is today's global economy. The value of NIST and its pervasive
influence was brought home to me a few years ago when I was invited to
South Africa as part of an international advisory group to review the
South African Bureau of Standards and to provide the government with
proposals for improvement. The work there could be defined as
developing, institutionalizing, and monitoring everyday weights and
measures used in everything from country stores to gasoline
distributors to food processors to multinational companies
manufacturing everything from automobiles to everyday household goods.
The quality of transactions that we in the U.S. take for granted were
still being monitored and improved. Some of these activities in the
rural areas of the country would have been NIST activities a hundred
years ago! The U.S. public just assumes that commerce and regulatory
activities will be carried out with consistency and be based on
appropriate standards that can be verified if necessary. This
complacency is possible because of the long history of NIST standards
work including calibration and metrology science in all areas of our
enterprise. The value of the government's role in these activities was
first acknowledged by the Founding Fathers when they included in the
Constitution the need to establish a system of weights and measures.
The establishment of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901 (NBS)
gave this important government function to NBS. New responsibilities
for direct industry interaction were added and NBS was renamed the
National Institute for Standards and Technology in the 1980's. NIST
continues the production and distribution of standards for all areas of
commerce and modern life but it has now gone beyond these early
responsibilities. Today NIST is the premier laboratory for metrology
research in the world with applications in all areas of emerging
technologies like nanotechnology, biotechnology, and high performance
computing. The quality of this work is epitomized by the receipt of
three Nobel Prizes by NIST scientists in the last few years. In
summary, NIST is an American jewel that provides one of our advantages
in a competitive global environment. Long-term support for its programs
should be an investment at a very high priority in our federal budget.
However, NIST should be held to very high standards and should be
expected to justify its activities and prioritize its opportunities to
play a significant role in the competitiveness initiatives in the
Competes Act of 2007.
I have reviewed the President's proposed budget for NIST for 2009
and the planning document NIST provided to the Congress. The requested
additional support for the NIST laboratories is certainly justified by
the proposed new research activities outlined in their planning
document. The facilities funding, particularly for the expansion and
up-grade of the Colorado facilities, is long overdue. The world class
research that takes place there deserves a world class facility.
However, the President's budget proposal to phase out funding for
the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) and the new Technology
Initiation Program (TIP) is both short-sighted and represents a
misunderstanding of the value of these programs. It is my assessment
that this oversight is disastrous for the incentivization of innovation
in small and medium sized enterprises and for NIST as it carries out
its mandates for the support of cutting edge manufacturing technologies
and the incentivization of new American companies utilizing emerging
technologies. Two examples will be illustrative of these values. The
National Academies convened a panel (I was a member of the panel) to
review the National Nanotechnology Initiative funded through several
government bureaus. Two of the findings were: (1) there are many (in
the thousands) start-ups and early stage companies with potential
products and processes utilizing nanoparticles and nanotechnology, and
(2) the health and environmental effects of nanomaterials in the work
place and in consumer products are not well understood. These findings
certainly justify the proposed NIST work on nano-manufacturing
processes and the development of metrology and standards for
nanomaterials. The question is how to effectively couple the NIST work
to these businesses in emerging technologies.
The legislation renaming NBS contained the following directives:
``to. . .modernize and restructure that agency to augment its unique
ability to enhance the competitiveness of American industry while
maintaining its traditional function. . .''; ``to assist private sector
initiatives to capitalize on advanced technology''; and ``to advance,
though cooperative efforts among industries, universities and
government laboratories, promising research and development projects,
which can be optimized by the private sector for commercial and
industrial applications.'' These directives were further endorsed by
the America COMPETES Act of 2007 where the Congress authorized MEP
(with a proposed doubling of its budget over time) and TIP. How better
to carry out the NIST mandate that coupling the MEP State programs with
the NIST scientists who are developing these new manufacturing and
metrology technologies? Many research studies have shown that
technology transfer is most efficient if the technology developers have
a close relationship with the users. Thus NIST could create a model of
tech transfer by educating the personnel in the State MEP centers about
their evolving technologies and then challenge the State centers to
catalog and reach out to the start-ups and early stage technology
companies in their State. The NIST scientists could both focus their
efforts better and more rapidly see their efforts utilized by
understanding the needs of these new companies in real time. Thus MEP
represents a unique vehicle for a faster, better focused effort on
NIST's part and the companies have the benefit of the early adoption of
NIST standards and manufacturing technologies. This provides a win-win
success for NIST, the companies, and the American competitiveness.
A similar argument can be made about TIP. TIP was authorized in the
America COMPETES Act to ``support, promote, and accelerate innovation
in the United States through high-risk high-reward research in areas of
critical national need.'' The mechanism to carry out this mandate was
the establishment of a program of competitive grants for partial
funding of small or medium size enterprises via contracts,
collaborative efforts with universities, etc. Again, if NIST is to
carry out its mandate for aiding the private sector in moving
successfully to new, promising technologies, what better vehicle than
interacting with real companies who are trying to turn technology into
commercial projects and processes. The NIST experience with ATP clearly
demonstrates their ability to propose and effectively manage a grants/
contracts program as outlined in the TIP authorization legislation.
Thus I see the President's budget initiative to eliminate MEP and to
not establish TIP, very short sighted and an example of not
understanding what NIST gains from these programs and how important
they are for the U.S. to stake out leadership in the commercialization
of the new and emerging technologies where we have funded much of the
underlying fundamental research. These two programs can be very
instrumental in the successful start-ups in nanotechnology,
biotechnology, high performance computing (including light-scale
communications), hydrogen fuel, and quantum computing.
With respect to the NIST Three-Year Programmatic Plan, it describes
NIST's value in the U.S. enterprise, its processes for internal quality
reviews, and the programs they plan with additional funding the 2009
budget provides for the laboratories. However it is not a usual
``strategic'' plan. For example, they point out that the programs they
plan to focus on are: ``address critical national needs and measurement
barriers to innovation; improve the capacity and capability of the NIST
laboratories; and form new and strengthen existing partnerships with
industry and academia.'' The plan, if you include the Appendices to the
report, do a good job of the strategy pertaining to maintaining the
NIST laboratories but the plan does not provide a strategy for
determining national needs or how to make a significant increase in
industry and academic ties. A strategic review and prioritization of
the national needs results would then inform the planning for the
laboratories. Recently the ASTRA (Alliance for Science and Technology
Research in America) Legislative Task Force released a report entitled
``Riding the Rising Tide: ASTRA's Strategy for Enhancing U.S.
Competitiveness and Prosperity.'' This report, which was contributed to
and vetted by several scientific and engineering societies, several
industry partners and several academic institutions, proposed a 14-
point Innovation Action Agenda for the U.S. The 14 points can be
divided into three strategic areas: Federal Funding of R&D; workforce
and STEM education; and a business climate that supports innovation.
NIST clearly has a major role in the federal research efforts but it
also has the opportunity to play a role in assuring an ``innovation
agenda'' for U.S.-based industry. Thus the NIST forward plan should
include insight beyond just next year's budget constraints. It would
have been helpful if they could have correlated their forward plan to
the overall innovation agenda so that they stake out their
opportunities and responsibilities for a major impact on the rate and
quality of innovation in the United States. Such a longer-term
strategic view would then maximize their opportunity to guide the
budget process rather than having the yearly budgets guide their
activities.
I would have also liked some detailed discussion of the Baldrige
National Quality Award program although it is a small portion of the
budget. This program has the opportunity to disseminate best practices
in businesses, health, and education. It should be integrated into the
overall push for innovation in these sectors.
Clearly, in the limited scope of this hearing and the time
available, it was not possible to comment on all of the facets of the
NIST activities. So, in summary, let me say that the attention to, and
planning for, accelerated innovation in the U.S. enterprise is the most
important part of any plan to maintain U.S. competitiveness. Other
factors are important, but without innovative new companies and the
ability of established businesses to continue to change and innovate,
the U.S. outlook for providing a high quality of life for its citizens
gets much less positive. NIST is an important link in this plan for the
future and a significant investment in both their internal and external
activities is a must investment from the federal budget.
Biography for Mary L. Good
Mary L. Good is the Donaghey University Professor at the University
of Arkansas at Little Rock, and serves as Dean for the College of
Information Science and Systems Engineering. She is managing member for
the Fund for Arkansas' Future, LLC. (an investment fund for start-up
and early stage companies), past President of the AAAS, past President
of the ACS, and an elected member of the National Academy of
Engineering. She presently serves on the Boards of Acxiom, Inc., St.
Vincent Health System, and Delta Bank and Trust.
Previously she served a four-year term as the Under Secretary for
Technology for the Technology Administration in the Department of
Commerce, a Presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed, position. In
addition, she chaired the National Science and Technology Council's
Committee on Technological Innovation (NSTC/CTI), and served on the
NSTC Committee on National Security. Previously she has served as the
Senior Vice President for Technology for Allied Signal and as the Boyd
Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science at Louisiana State
University.
She was appointed to the National Science Board by President Carter
in 1980 and by President Reagan in 1986. She was the Chair of that
board from 1988-91, when she received an appointment by President Bush
to be a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology.
She has received many awards, including the National Science
Foundation's Distinguished Public Service Award, the American Institute
of Chemists' Gold Medal, the Priestly Medal from the American Chemical
Society, and the Vannevar Bush Award from the National Science Board,
among others.
Good received her Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from the
University of Central Arkansas and her MS and Ph.D. degrees in
Inorganic Chemistry from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Good. Dr. Fiske,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER S. FISKE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT, PAX SCIENTIFIC, INC.; CO-FOUNDER, RAPT
INDUSTRIES, INC.
Dr. Fiske. Thank you very much, Chairman Wu, Committee
Members, for the opportunity to speak today.
Seven years ago, I committed an unthinkable act. I left a
comfortable and reasonably well paid job at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab, and I set off to create a new business. It was
oriented around a novel optical manufacturing technology called
reactive atom plasma processing. The technology was developed
at the lab, but my co-founder, Jeffrey Carr, could not find any
support within the Laboratory. In fact, when I met him, the
prototype was sitting under a tarp outside a loading dock in
one of the buildings.
Taking the new technology from the benchtop to demonstrate
its commercial viability is an enormous undertaking. It is easy
to demonstrate that a new technology works at some rudimentary
level in the laboratory, but it takes a tremendous amount of
engineering, testing, and market analysis to make a new
technology work reliably, economically, and fit within the
needs of the marketplace. This journey is often referred to as
crossing the Valley of Death, and it is an absolutely critical
process for the U.S. economy and for economic competitiveness
overall.
So, having been through the Valley of Death, I would like
to share with you some observations about how this process of
technology commercialization really works, and how federal
policy can help, and specifically orient my comments around
TIP, and its previous incarnation, ATP. I would also like to
add that I have spoken with many entrepreneurs, in Silicon
Valley and elsewhere, and my comments are largely echoed by all
of them.
No matter what anybody's politics, nearly everybody
believes that technology innovation is the key factor in U.S.
economic growth. Our ability to take scientific discoveries
from the laboratory, and turn them into productivity enhancing
technologies that rapidly proliferate in the national and
international market is a key strength of the U.S. economy.
Small technology businesses play a particularly important role
in this. They, and the entrepreneurs who found them, take the
risks on the new technologies because it is the only way that
these small companies can get traction in the marketplace.
So, while we would all like to believe that the U.S. is the
best in the world at fostering this sort of entrepreneurship, I
have to impress upon you how difficult the process actually is,
how vital such tools as ATP and TIP are to entrepreneurs such
as myself.
Contrary to popular belief in Washington, venture capital
does not fund a lot of early stage technologies at the early
stages of commercialization. Venture capital shies away from
these sorts of investments, because of the long--the high
degree of uncertainty, and the long and uncertain pathway that
technology has to travel. Venture capital only focuses on
funding opportunities that are less than five years away from
profitability, and that have a potential for enormous equity
appreciation, and that fall within a narrow range of markets.
Many new technologies do not fit this model, and most, like
my company, do not receive venture funding. Technology with
enormous potential to help the U.S. economy, in fields such as
manufacturing and transportation, do not make attractive
investments at their early stage for venture capitalists. This
is not to say that venture capital is not vital or does not
play a valuable role, but not at these early stages of
technology development and commercialization. Any venture
capitalist would tell you this.
Ironically, the most important venture capitalist in the
United States is named Uncle Sam. The Federal Government
supports cutting edge technology development in small business
through a range of programs, such as SBIR, cooperative research
and development agreements, and other contract mechanisms. In
my years building RAPT Industries, my company has benefited
from many of these programs, and all of them were helpful in
keeping us alive as we marched through the Valley of Death. But
out of all these programs, ATP stands out as particularly
effective. Our company won an ATP award in 2003, and while it
was far from the largest R&D contract we received, it was by
far the most potent. ATP and TIP are unique in several
respects. First, these programs focus on technologies with the
greatest potential for the U.S. economy. In contrast, programs
like SBIR focus on topics and technologies that are of interest
to the agencies, and those topics tend to be very narrow, and
sometimes, with limited commercial application.
Second, ATP grants support early stage technology
commercialization for several years. SBIR Phase I contracts
last as little as six months, and there is almost always a
break in funding between Phase I and Phase II. That is not
enough time really to travel the Valley of Death.
Third, ATP couples financial support with business
development and advice and expertise. We were paired with an
extremely helpful business analyst from NIST, who helped us
identify several key potential customers and new applications.
Lastly, the ATP program is efficient and well-run. I will
speak as a customer. Despite a highly competitive and rigorous
review process, they take only a few months to render opinions
on projects, and take even less time to get under contract. If
you don't do that, if you let those processes linger,
technology proceeds at a snail's pace. ATP was so valuable to
my company and to many others because it was well aligned to
the needs of small business. ATP encouraged and facilitated a
collaboration with end customers, rather than simply tolerating
it.
In a nutshell, a focus on high risk, high reward
technologies, multi-year funding, business advice, and an
efficient program management made ATP extremely effective for
helping small technology businesses such as mine. TIP appears
to carry on these principles, but without much funding, it
doesn't do us entrepreneurs very much good.
I don't mean these comments to be interpreted as a
criticism of SBIR and any of these other funding mechanisms,
and we entrepreneurs are grateful for all the help we can get
in building our companies, but the argument that ATP or TIP is
somehow redundant or unnecessary is simply incorrect. In my
opinion, it is the best program the Federal Government has that
supports technology commercialization.
I would not have been able to do what I did without ATP,
and had there been no ATP or TIP, I would have been a lot less
inclined to quit my job at Lawrence Livermore Lab and try.
Thank you, and I will be happy to take your questions.
[Prepared statement of Dr. Fiske follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter S. Fiske
A Postcard From the Valley of Death
Thank you, Chairman Wu and Committee Members, for the opportunity
to speak with you today about the NIST 2009 Budget Request in
particular and U.S. Innovation Policy in general.
Seven years ago I committed an unthinkable act. I left a
comfortable and reasonably well-paid job as a research scientist at
Lawrence Livermore National Lab and set off to create a new business
oriented around a novel optical manufacturing technology called
Reactive Atom Plasma processing. The technology was developed at
Lawrence Livermore National Lab by my co-founder, Dr. Jeffrey Carr, but
was viewed by Laboratory management as too immature. In fact, when I
first learned about the technology the only prototype was sitting under
a tarp on a loading dock outside one of the laboratory buildings.
Taking a new technology from the benchtop through to a demonstrated
commercially viable product is an enormous undertaking. It is easy to
demonstrate that a new technology works at some rudimentary level in a
laboratory setting. It takes a tremendous amount of engineering,
testing and market analysis to make a new technology work reliably,
economically and fit within the needs of the marketplace. This journey
is often referred to as crossing the ``valley of death,'' and it is an
absolutely critical process for the U.S. economy and economic
competitiveness.
So, having been through the Valley of Death, I'd like to share with
you some observations about how this process REALLY works, how federal
policy can help, and specifically orient my comments to the TIP program
and it's previous incarnation--ATP. I would also add that I have spoken
to many other technology entrepreneurs and their experiences are
similar to my own.
No matter what their politics, nearly everybody believes that
technology innovation is a key factor in U.S. economic growth. Our
ability to take scientific discoveries from the laboratory and turn
them into productivity-enhancing technologies that rapidly proliferate
in the national and international market is a key strength of the U.S.
economy. Small technology businesses play a particularly important
role--they, and the entrepreneurs who found them--take the risks on new
technologies because that's the only way they have to get a foothold in
the marketplace.
While we would like to all believe that the U.S. is the best in the
world at fostering this sort of entrepreneurship I have to impress upon
you how difficult the process of technology commercialization actually
is--and how vital tools such as ATP and TIP are to entrepreneurs such
as myself.
Contrary to popular belief in Washington D.C. venture capital is
NOT a major funder of new technologies at the earliest stages of
commercialization. Venture capital shies away from such investments
because of the long and uncertain pathway that technologies must travel
to demonstrate economic viability. Venture capital ONLY focuses on
funding opportunities that are less than five years away from
profitability, have the potential for enormous equity appreciation, and
fall within a narrow range of markets. Most new technologies do NOT fit
this model, and most, like my company, don't get funded. Technologies
with enormous potential to help the U.S. economy, in fields such as
manufacturing and transportation, do NOT make attractive investments
for venture capitalists. This is not to say that venture capital is not
vital--it is--but it cannot be relied upon to support early-stage,
high-risk technology commercialization across the board--and any
venture capitalist you spoke with would confirm this.
Ironically, the most important ``venture capitalist'' for early-
stage technologies is Uncle Sam. The Federal Government supports
cutting edge technology development in small businesses through a range
of programs such as SBIR, Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (CRADAs) and other contract mechanisms. My company has
benefited from many of these programs, and all of them were helpful in
keeping us alive as we marched through the valley of death.
But out of all these programs, the ATP stands out as particularly
effective. Our company won an ATP in 2003 and, while it was far from
the largest R&D contract we received, it was the most potent. ATP (and
TIP) are unique in several respects. First--these programs focus on
technologies with the greatest potential for the U.S. economy. In
contrast, programs like SBIR, focus on topics and technologies that are
of interest to the sponsoring agency--and those topics tend to be very
narrow and with limited commercial application. Second, ATP grants
support early-stage technology commercialization for several years--
SBIR Phase I grants are as short as six months--hardly enough time to
travel the valley of death. Third, ATP couples financial support with
business development advice and expertise. We were paired with an
extremely helpful business analyst from NIST who helped us identify
several key potential customers and new applications. Lastly, the ATP
program is efficient and well-run--despite a highly competitive and
rigorous review process, funding decisions happen quickly. In contrast,
programs such as SBIR can take many months to select projects, and
several months more to get under contract--technology development
proceeds at a snail's pace.
ATP was so valuable to my company, and to many others, because it
was well-aligned to the needs of a small business. ATP encouraged and
facilitated collaboration with end customers--rather than simply
tolerating it.
In a nutshell: a focus on high-risk/high reward technologies,
multi-year funding, business advice, and efficient program management
made ATP extremely effective for helping small technology-based
businesses such as mine. TIP appears to carry on these principles--but
without much funding it doesn't help us.
I do not mean these comments to be interpreted as a criticism of
SBIR and other funding mechanisms--we entrepreneurs are grateful for
all the help we can get! But the argument that ATP or TIP is somehow
redundant or unnecessary is simply incorrect. In my opinion it is the
BEST program the Federal Government has that supports technology
commercialization.
I would not have been able to do what I did without the ATP. And
had there been no ATP or TIP, I would have been a lot less inclined to
quit my job at Lawrence Livermore Lab and try.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.
Biography for Peter S. Fiske
MBA, UC-Berkeley, 2002; Ph.D., Stanford University, 1993
Prior to starting RAPT Industries, Inc., Dr. Fiske led a research
team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in condensed matter
physics. His business plan for RAPT Industries won First Place at the
2001 U.C. Berkeley Business Plan Competition. He is the author of 20
technical articles in leading scientific journals including Science and
two books. In 1996 Dr. Fiske was awarded a White House Fellowship and
served in the Pentagon as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Special Projects. His other awards include an NSF Graduate Fellowship
(1988-91), a STA Fellowship by the government of Japan (1995), the U.S.
Department of Defense Outstanding Achievement Award (1997) and an Aspen
Scholarship at the Aspen Institute in 2001. Dr. Fiske was CEO of RAPT
Industries from May, 2001 to April, 2004.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Fiske. Mr. Coast.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL J. COAST, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MICHIGAN
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CENTER; PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SMALL
MANUFACTURERS COALITION
Mr. Coast. Chairman Wu, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear here today. I am Mike Coast,
President of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center,
Michigan's affiliate of the National Manufacturing Extension
Partnership.
I am also the current Chairman of the Board of the American
Small Manufacturers Coalition, the trade association of the 59
MEP Centers. Congressman Ehlers is already well aware of our
work, as he represents the district that is home to our west
Michigan office, the Right Place Program, and all the good work
that they do over there with the manufacturers from the west
side of the state.
I testify today about the dire situation facing small and
mid-sized manufacturers, and about how the President's proposed
elimination of federal funding for MEP would affect them. There
are more than 30,000 fewer small and mid-sized manufacturing
plants in the U.S. than there were a decade ago. In Michigan,
there were 16,000 such facilities in 1998. Today, there are
barely 13,000.
MEP Centers have proven over the past decade or more that
they can help these smaller manufacturers succeed, despite this
challenging landscape. In a typical recent year, MEP clients
credit their services with: improving productivity in eight of
every ten cases, with cost savings totaling more than $1.1
billion; helping companies served to add or retain nearly $6.8
billion in sales and 52,000 jobs, inducing those companies to
help make more than $1.6 billion in additional investments. In
Michigan, my center's clients credit it with more than $100
million in new and retained sales, 956 jobs, $18 million in
cost savings, and more than $30 million in investment.
As their traditional customers globalize, small
manufacturers have found that they need to do more than improve
quality and reduce costs to remain competitive. The MEP network
has responded by developing or partnering to require new
services that help them prospect for new customers, evaluate
new markets and product concepts, and improve the way they
develop and launch new products. Indeed, MEP's new catchword is
20/20, expressing that many smaller manufacturers need not just
20 percent lower costs, but also, a 20 percent top line growth.
At the Michigan MEP Center, services related to new
customers, new markets, and new products have grown from almost
nothing to about 15 to 20 percent of our total service
portfolio. Congress recognized the effectiveness of the MEP
program last year when it passed the America COMPETES Act. The
legislation foresaw the need not only to maintain, but to grow
MEP. Under the ACT, MEP's federal funding would rise from its
recent $104 to $106 million annual level, to $122 million for
fiscal year 2009, with further increases in 2010 and 2011.
Despite MEP's track record of impact and efficiency, and
ignoring the will of Congress, the President now proposes the
virtual elimination of federal funding for MEP. One can debate
what the precise effect of this would be, but the main outcomes
are beyond dispute. Many Centers would close. Most that do not
would shrink significantly, partly because many of the states
that support the Centers explicitly in the form of matching
funds.
Some have argued that smaller manufacturers could go out
and buy the services similar to those offered by MEP Centers
from the private sector consulting firms, but history shows us
that without some public funding to offset the cost of outreach
and sales, consultants shy away from all but the best-heeled of
these small companies. And that is only logical. Without public
funds, my Center and most other Centers would have no choice
but to focus on larger manufacturers.
With your help, however, the Nation can avoid this sharp
reduction in services to smaller manufacturers. By turning back
the President's proposal, and returning it to the support
levels authorized by the America COMPETES Act, the Congress can
help save MEP and help it grow. MEP is the country's only
national program created specifically to help the U.S. small
manufacturing base, and preserve its nearly 10 million good
jobs.
At this moment of grave risk to the manufacturers and the
rest of the economy, MEP brings otherwise unavailable technical
expertise to tens of thousands of struggling U.S. companies.
In closing, I urge you, on the behalf of my Center, 58
other Centers of the MEP network, and nearly 340,000 small and
medium-sized manufacturers across the Nation, to act to restore
full funding to MEP. For you on the Subcommittee, I have
enclosed one success story for each Member of the Subcommittee
from their district or state, and also, from Michigan, you will
notice that there is a list of companies that are from
Michigan, of the 440 companies in the last couple of years that
we have worked with, from the MEP.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coast follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Coast
Chairman Wu, Congressman Gingrey, Members of the Subcommittee--
Thank you for this opportunity to appear today. I am Michael J. Coast,
President of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, Michigan's
affiliate of the national Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I am
also the current President of the American Small Manufacturers
Coalition, the trade association of the 59 MEP centers. Congressman
Ehlers is already well aware of our work, as he represents the district
that is home to our West Michigan office.
I testify today about the dire situation facing small- and medium-
sized U.S. manufacturers, and about how the President's proposed
elimination of federal funding for MEP would affect them.
There are more than 30,000 fewer small- and medium-sized
manufacturing plants in the U.S. today than there were a decade ago. In
Michigan, there were 16,000 such facilities in 1998; today, there are
barely 13,000. Thanks to increased imports of both manufactured
products and their parts, U.S. manufacturing value-added is essentially
unchanged over the past decade; in Michigan, it is quite clearly lower.
This is not some long-term, inevitable decline analogous to the job
losses in agriculture during the past century. In agriculture,
employment fell because of rising productivity, but real output grew,
and continues to grow. No, in manufacturing, the issue is the failure
of many small- and medium-sized companies to perform well enough to
withstand the competitive pressures of a globalized economy in which
the U.S. operations of most of their traditional customers are no
longer growing. With the sharp slowdown in economic activity that began
last October, the situation has become even more difficult. U.S.
manufacturing employment has plunged from 17.6 million in 1998 to
barely 13.6 million in January of this year. Since last August,
manufacturing has been losing an average of 60,000 jobs a month, a
sharp reversal after a nearly four-year period of relative stability.
MEP centers have proven over the past decade or more that they can
help these smaller manufacturers succeed despite this challenging
landscape. In a typical recent year, MEP centers' clients credit their
services with:
<bullet> Improving productivity in eight of every ten cases,
with cost savings totaling more than $1.1 billion;
<bullet> Helping the companies served to add or retain nearly
$6.8 billion in sales and 52 thousand jobs; and
<bullet> Inducing those companies to make more than $1.6
billion in additional investments.
In Michigan, my center's clients credit it with more than $100
million in new and retained sales, 956 jobs, $18 million in cost
savings, and more than $30 million in induced investment during the
last full year for which survey data are available.
As their traditional customers globalize, smaller manufacturers
have found that they need to do more than improve quality and reduce
costs to remain competitive. The MEP network has responded by
developing or partnering to acquire new services that help them
prospect for new customers; evaluate new markets and product concepts;
and improve the way they develop and launch new products. Indeed, MEP's
new catchword is ``20/20''--expressing that many smaller manufacturers
need not just 20 percent lower costs, but also 20 percent top-line
growth. At the Michigan MEP center, services related to new customers,
new markets, and new products have grown from almost nothing to about
15 percent of our total service portfolio. By 2010, I expect that they
will exceed 25 percent of what we do with our clients.
Congress recognized the effectiveness of the MEP program last year
when it passed the America COMPETES Act. That legislation foresaw the
need not only to maintain, but to grow, MEP. Under the Act, MEP's
federal funding would rise from its recent $104-$106 million annual
level to $122 million for FY 2009, with further increases in FY 2010
and FY 2011.
Despite MEP's track record of impact and efficiency, and ignoring
the will of the Congress, the President now proposes the virtual
elimination of federal funding for MEP. One can debate what the precise
effect of this would be, but the main outcomes are beyond dispute. Many
centers would close. Most that do not would shrink significantly,
partly because many states' support for the centers is explicitly in
the form of matching funds: that is, it could be withdrawn if federal
funding were to end. Some have argued that smaller manufacturers could
go out and buy services similar to those offered by the MEP centers
from private sector consulting firms. But history shows that, without
some public funding to offset the cost of outreach and sales,
consultants shy away from all but the best-heeled small companies. And
that's only logical: without public funds, my center and most others
would also have no choice but to focus on larger manufacturers.
With your help, however, the Nation can avoid this sharp reduction
in services to smaller manufacturers. By turning back the President's
proposal and returning to the support levels authorized by the America
COMPETES Act, the Congress can save MEP and help it grow. MEP is the
country's only national program created specifically to help the U.S.
small manufacturing base and preserve its nearly 10 million good jobs.
At this moment of grave risk to manufacturing and the rest of the
economy, MEP brings otherwise unavailable technical expertise to tens
of thousands of struggling U.S. companies.
In closing, I urge you--on behalf of my center, the other 58
centers of the MEP network, and the nearly 340,000 small and medium-
sized manufacturers across the Nation--to act to restore full funding
to MEP.
Thank you.
Biography for Michael J. Coast
Mike Coast is the President and CEO of the Michigan Manufacturing
Technology Center (MMTC) and is responsible for directing the
operations, programs, and working relationships with Michigan's
industrial, business, and governmental stakeholders. In 2007, MMTC was
awarded the Not-for-Profit of the Year award from the Automation Alley.
Additionally, he is responsible for maintaining and building on the
successful partnership between the MMTC and the Michigan Economic
Development Corporation (MEDC). The MMTC has been chosen to play a lead
role in coordinating and streamlining technology-related services to
Michigan's established industries.
Previously, Mike was Vice President and Executive Director for the
MMTC's statewide program. As Executive Director, he was responsible for
developing new business, working with manufacturers to implement
manufacturing technologies, collaborating with service providers, and
discovering potential funding sources to increase the capabilities of
the MMTC.
Mike came to the MMTC with more than eight years of technology
development experience and more than sixteen years of manufacturing
experience. Prior to joining the MMTC, he was the Associate Director
for the Youngstown State University Technology Development Corporation
in Youngstown, Ohio. Also, Mike held a variety of managerial positions
with engineering and technologically based organizations including
Leeds & Northrup, Mayer China, Sargent Electric Company, and Airway
Industries, Inc.
Mike received his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering with a
minor in Industrial Engineering at Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA.
Discussion
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Coast, and now comes
the time for questions. Members will be permitted five minutes
each to ask questions, and the Chair recognizes himself first.
In the interests of saving some time, before I ask question
about MEP and TIP, Dr. Turner, I just want to say very clearly
that the three-year planning document which we have received is
not what we had in mind when this Congress passed the
requirement last year, and while the document speaks sometimes
in sort of consultant's language about general values, about
the need for outreach, all of which is commendable, it does not
label out what research areas NIST should participate in, how
those research areas make us a more competitive economy, and
perhaps, most importantly, how we get from where we are to
where we want to go in those identified research areas. It
becomes an agreement about what those research areas are. And I
hope that this Subcommittee, the Committee as a whole, at both
the Member and the staff level, can work with you and your
staff to come up with more focused three-year plans in the
future, because I think that that is the only way that we can
justify this increase in funding for NIST over the long haul.
We simply have to have that statutorily required strategic
planning document.
Now, on MEP and TIP, we heard from Mr. Coast, we hear
eloquently from Dr. Fiske about how TIP helped march him and
his company over the--through the Valley of Death, and from Dr.
Good about how MEP and TIP can be good, not only for the
purported beneficiary, but also for NIST as an organization, to
be more attuned to what our economy needs. These programs, MEP
and TIP, are supported, as you heard here today, by both
Republicans and Democrats. We have sought to avoid this seesaw
battle where the funding goes up and down and up and down, and
things become undependable from a user perspective.
And Dr. Turner, you have only been in place since
September. Let me just give you an opportunity to defend, as
best you can, to lay out the rationale that NIST or the
Administration may have, for zeroing out TIP, and in effect,
zeroing out MEP, permitting closedown costs only.
Dr. Turner. Yes, sir. Let me first say, with regard to the
three-year plan, we welcome the opportunity to work with you
and your staff to make the kind of document that you would find
useful. We would like to go ahead and do that.
But now, with respect to MEP and TIP, let me just say first
of all, one of the things that I did, you know, the first few
months I was at NIST was to visit an MEP Center in Colorado and
to meet with some clients, and I was extremely impressed. And
so, again, I believe it is a good program. In conjunction with
the VCAT meeting that took place this past December in South
Carolina, I had, you know, insisted on setting aside some time
to visit the South Carolina Center, and again, meet with the
clients down there. Unfortunately, there was a medical
emergency involving my son and his family that caused him to be
MedEvaced out of Cairo back to the United States, that
prevented me from going to that meeting. But my Deputy did
follow-up, visited the South Carolina Center, and met with some
of their clients, and similar to my experience in Colorado, he
came back very impressed with the work that was being done.
Chairman Wu. It would be fair to say that both you and your
staff, and members of the agency are supportive of MEP.
Dr. Turner. Well, let me just say, we all agree that MEP is
a good program, but for us, it came down to a matter of
priorities and limited resources, and for us, our highest
priority is to get our core programs back up to the doubling
curve, and we tried to do that.
Chairman Wu. But this Congress set priorities for you, and
put those programs on a doubling curve, along with MEP and TIP.
Dr. Turner. Well, again----
Chairman Wu. With all due respect, Acting Director Turner.
Dr. Turner. For us, it was the combination of the American
Competitiveness Initiative, and the America COMPETES Act, and
again, for us, the priority was those core programs, which
affect broad industrial sectors, as well as creating new
industries, and so, that was our priority, and you know, and we
had to make some difficult choices. This was not an easy call
to make, and so, it was a difficult choice to make.
Regarding TIP, first of all, we fully intend to run a
successful TIP competition, using the '08 appropriation. The
rule that will establish the governance of TIP is now out for
public comment. We are prepared to move forward with it, and as
you heard, you know, we intend to apply the same standard of
excellence to the TIP program as we did to ATP, as far as our
ability to carry those programs out. And so, we look forward to
that.
Again, with TIP as well as MEP, it came down to a situation
of priorities, trying to get our core programs back up to the
doubling curve, and the situation where we have the resources
at our disposal were limited, and so, we had to make those
tough calls, and so, again, the point I want to make is, we
agree that MEP is a good program, and with regard to TIP, we
are going to carry out a successful '08 competition.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much. My five minutes has
expired. We have a vote on, so I want to turn to Dr. Ehlers,
but let me just reiterate, with all due respect, sir, those
priorities were set in statute by the enabling legislation last
year, and we would really like the agency to obey the law, as
enacted.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Good, do you, you were sort of, positions related to
NIST, or directly in NIST for some time. You talked about,
pretty strongly about the need for a good strategic planning
process.
I would be interested in a little more detail from you.
What would you be looking for, how would you proceed with it?
NIST is such a diverse organization that ranges from the
esoteric research which, frankly, in my experience, is left
best outside strategic planning, because you are always looking
for that spark of genius, which doesn't fit in the strategic
planning charts, but it ranges from that all the way to things
like TIP and MEP and other programs.
Could you describe for me what you have in mind when you
talk about strategic planning?
Dr. Good. I can say a few words about that. I don't
disagree with you, with respect to the percentage of really,
what I would call blue sky kinds of research they do. To
include that, or try to include that, in a forward-looking
mode, in strategic planning is very difficult to do, and if you
do it too tightly, you end up not getting very much really new
stuff.
Now, the industry, over time, has that out, but what I was
really referring to is the fact that it seems to me that NIST
does need, though, there are so many of these new, what I call
emergent technologies today, where they are in the process of
now beginning to set standards for those, and the Metrology
Lab, particularly, the Micrometrology Lab, allows them to set
standards in areas that are truly very new.
And so, the question is, which ones of those do they want
to try to develop first, where is the biggest need, and how do
you go about finding out, how do you try to at least prioritize
where those needs are going to be? And so, I would not disagree
with you with respect to the fundamental research that is done
in NIST, but I would suggest that they need a strategic plan,
though, in all of those activities that are what I call
technology assistance programs, and MEP and TIP fit that, as
does, really, the standards development in these emerging
technologies. Because you cannot do all of them. You will never
have enough money to do them all at the same time, so you need
some prioritization of those, and you need some mechanism up
front which tells you which ones are not going to, not--how do
you figure out which ones don't work, and which ones, then,
were really important, and how do we stay ahead of the
competition. In other words, we need some view, for example,
where is the metrology and nanotechnology transition in the
rest of the world, and how do we compete, and how does NIST
stand up against that? And I would think a strategic plan would
have those sorts of issues included in it.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, and I want to make it clear, I
wasn't questioning the need for it. I was just curious what,
from your perspective, you would see.
Just on, and getting back to MEP for just a moment, before
we have to go off and vote, it has always struck me, you know,
this nation grew strong over the years, particularly in
agriculture, which was the first industry that this nation had,
and it was one of the most important, until just a few years
ago, and it is still extremely important. The government,
including the Congress, recognized that many years ago, we
established the land grant universities, which were designed to
do research in agriculture. They set up the Cooperative
Extension Services, which is the combination of the federal and
State, and everyone thinks it is a wonderful system, and we put
about $400 million a year into the cooperation Extension
Service.
Now, it has always seemed very strange to me, that since
back then, agriculture was 80 percent of the employment in the
country. Now, it is less than two percent because of the
modernization, and we are still spending $400 million a year on
the Cooperative Extension Service, whereas at the same time,
manufacturing is now roughly 14 percent of the employment in
the country, and we have trouble getting $100 million for an
extension program. Now, there is something wrong with this
picture, isn't there? And I think we just have to recognize
that.
Agriculture grew strong because of assistance from the
Federal Government. Manufacturing is, has been strong without
government assistance. Now, I think we are at the point where
it needs some, and the MEP, I think, and TIP, are very good
programs with a huge payback to the government, in terms of
taxes, general economic health, and so forth.
So, I--you can tell I am the son of a preacher. I have to
get that message across. I preach it all the time, but I just
wanted to make my point clear on that. I think this country has
made a bad mistake on those issues, and we should carry the
ball forward on them.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers. Ms.
Richardson.
And returning to other subjects under NIST, Dr. Turner, I
have heard concerns both within the Federal Government and in
the private sector, about the status of the cyber security
initiatives at NIST, and setting standards for cyber security,
and I wanted to ask you and ask other members of the panel to
comment, if you would, on where we are in developing cyber
security standards, and whether we are making adequate progress
for where we ought to be.
Dr. Turner. Yes, sir, one of our initiatives is a cyber
security initiative, that we are working with NSA, the FBI and
other groups on that. It is basically to provide defense in
depth in protecting computer assets. It is looking at cyber
security keys, but also, looking at other measures that can
take the, you know, that can move forward, and layers of
protection that we can have, and so, that is, this is something
that we are very serious about.
We are also--the Quantum Computing Initiative also feeds
into that, because not only will that revolutionize the way
computing is done, but also, it provides a huge increase in the
level of security that can be provided for computing, and
making sure that your messages are easily accessible to those
who have authorization to them, but extremely difficult for an
adversary to tap into. So, we are moving forward on both of
those areas. Cyber security, also, is an extremely important
area for us, because again, the way that our nation now relies
on the network and using, moving things back and forth, you
know, using the electronics that we have available, you know,
we need to make sure that this is being done.
Also, I would like to point out that we are, you know,
doing other things to help facilitate electronic commerce,
which highlights to us, even more, the need for a secure
network.
Chairman Wu. Well, if there are no other comments by other
panelists, we are drawing down to about the last two and a half
minutes before this voting clock expires on the House Floor,
and let me just flag, for submission by staff and for response,
concerns about two other general areas.
And one is whether there has been sufficient investment in
biomaterials, because there is discussion that sufficient
reference materials for biologics would be of great assistance
to developing technologies and industries. And the other is
whether there is sufficient oversight over the tremendous
investment that is going on in nanotechnology. Now,
nanotechnology is a very appropriate thing to be investing in.
However, I am told that about 20 percent of NIST's research
budget is currently being invested in nanotechnology, and I
want to make very sure that those investments are made with
some coordination, and that it is a bottoms-up effort to
support various things going on in our economy, and not a
response to a top-down, things ought to fit in nanotechnology,
so whatever it is you are doing, let us fit it under the
nanotech rubric.
My apologies to the panel for sort of the interruptions
that we have had today, but thank you all very much for
appearing this afternoon. Further statements will be, can be
submitted into the record for the next five days, and I thank
everyone for appearing.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James M. Turner, Acting Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. How much of NIST's resources will be devoted to cyber security in
FY08? Apart from the $5 million cyber security initiative will this
year's budget, how much does NIST propose to spend in FY09 on cyber
security?
A1. NIST will devote approximately $20.8 million from STRS
appropriations to cyber security in FY 2008, and will increase that by
$5 million if Congress funds the FY 2009 request.
Q2. How did NIST determine the size of the FY09 biotechnology
initiative ($10 million)? What external strategic partners does NIST
plan to work with in expanding its investments in the life sciences?
A2. As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the $10 million
requested in the President's budget for this initiative was determined
as sufficient to acquire the appropriate expertise and resources
necessary in FY 2009 for building up our foundation to meet anticipated
future needs in biosciences measurement. NIST's role in the biosciences
is to leverage the agency's expertise in the quantitative physical and
informational sciences that provide the measurement infrastructure for
enabling increased innovation in this area, and to provide confidence
for measurements of complex biological systems. To develop a robust
measurement capability, NIST has been reaching out to stakeholders that
include government, industry, and academia (examples include: FDA, NIH,
Pharma, Amgen, Genetech, Merck, the Institute for Systems Biology,
California Institute of Technology, the Mayo Clinic, and other
organizations) to identify critical measurement needs. As a result of
these efforts, the NIST FY 2009 budget initiative targets the need for
quantitative, traceable measurements and standards for biomarkers, the
ability to quantitatively make simultaneous multiplexed measurements of
multiple biological molecules (including genes, proteins, RNA, etc.),
and the informatics and computational tools and standards to manage and
manipulate the tremendous amounts of data generated by biological
experimentation.
As NIST expands investments in the life sciences, we are continuing
to work with stakeholders to continue our efforts in identifying other
critical measurements and standards needs. As part of this planning
process, NIST is working with the University of Maryland Biotechnology
Institute to sponsor a meeting entitled ``Accelerating Innovation in
21st Century Biosciences: Identifying the Measurement Standards and
Technological Challenges.'' The meeting will be held from October 20-
22, 2008, at NIST and will be open to leaders from industry, academia,
and government. Details of the meeting can be found at http://
www.cstl.nist.gov/Biosciences.html. Input from this meeting and other
outreach activities will form the basis of NIST's strategic plan for
future program expansion in the biosciences.
Q3. In each of the last five years, NIST has spent approximately 20
percent of its research budget on nanotechnology, the highest
percentage of all the agencies in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. How did NIST decide to allocate this level of resources to
this one technology area? Does NIST have a roadmap for its work in
nanotechnology? If not, why not?
A3. The focus of a majority of research at NIST is the advancement and
application of measurement science. This work relies increasingly upon
advances at the nanoscale--one billionth of a meter--and smaller (the
single atom, ion, photon, electron, etc.) It is a natural development
as the capabilities and needs of science and industry have advanced,
and it has been part of NIST's measurement science strategy before the
term ``nanotechnology'' became commonly used.
The label nanotechnology is, in fact, a broad one, linked mainly to
the size at which a material is being fabricated or examined. So it is
relevant to multiple disciplines ranging from physics, chemistry, and
materials science to electronics, building and fire research, and
information technology. That also makes nanotechnology relevant to many
scientific and engineering advances and industrial applications being
pursued by the customers served by NIST--and makes NIST measurement-
oriented contributions important to the nanotechnology revolution. This
multi-disciplinary, multi-sector involvement explains the relatively
high percentage of work at NIST that is classified as nanotechnology.
It should be expected that a good percentage of NIST's work in
nanotechnology also can be classified with other labels, such as
``materials science'' or ``bioscience'' or ``electronics.''
That is why NIST invests heavily in nanotechnology-related
research. This work is always informed by current and future needs of
industry, academia, and government for measurement-based advances. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative is the overarching government effort
to identify and address nanotechnology needs, and NIST's priorities are
derived from this cooperative planning effort--and supplemented by
information provided by NIST's primary customers and potential
customers in industry, academia, and government.
The Nanotechnology: Discovery to Manufacture initiative and the
Nanotechnology: Environment, Health, and Safety Infrastructure
initiative are two FY 2009 budget initiatives that tackle specific
challenges in the development and manufacture of nanodevices, or
products incorporating nanomaterials. Both of these initiatives were
mapped out and planned after significant consultation and coordination
with multiple stakeholders through interagency working groups, and
technical workshops. Moreover, it fits into a multi-year matrix of
phased investments in nanotechnology that NIST developed with the
active involve of leaders of all laboratories at NIST working on
nanotechnology. The final decision about these planned, phased
investments was made by the NIST Director.
NIST will continue to coordinate with the NNI and our stakeholders
in industry to ensure that our research programs that are specifically
targeted to nanotechnology continue to address the highest impact
challenges and problems. We will update our planning accordingly.
Q4a. How will NIST ensure that the results of the new initiative in
the environmental, health and safety (EHS) implications of
nanotechnology will be disseminated to regulatory agencies such as EPA
and FDA?
A4a. NIST will adhere to strict guidelines published within the Federal
EHS research strategy to ensure results of the NIST nanoEHS initiative
will be disseminated, particularly to the regulatory agencies, to
coordinate existing, and foster expanded, agency efforts to address
priority research needs and identified gaps. NIST will work closely
with the Nanomaterials Environmental Health Implications (NEHI) Working
Group (WG) to continue to facilitate coordination and increased
collaboration among the NNI agencies' research programs to address
priority research needs both individually and jointly, leverage
investment and expertise, and avoid duplication of effort.
Additionally, NIST will work with the other agencies and convene
workshops tailored to assess the state of science as this initiative
moves forward. The nanoEHS initiative research will be discussed in
detail and areas of weakness and gaps will be assessed during these
workshops. Participants will include representatives from the NNI
agencies, particularly the regulatory agencies, as well as academia,
non-governmental organizations, and industry. These workshops will:
<bullet> facilitate development of joint programs among NNI
regulatory agencies to ensure research needs critical to
regulatory missions are being met
<bullet> clarify priorities and areas of focus for pursuit and
collaborations with the regulatory agencies
<bullet> avoid unproductive redundancy and research that is
decoupled from regulatory agencies' missions and real-world
application, and
<bullet> identify synergistic opportunities.
In addition, NIST will continuously evaluate its activities with
the regulatory agencies via the framework outlined below.
Establishing a regular review process. NIST with work with the NNI
member agencies, particularly the regulatory agencies, and the NEHI
Working Group to conduct periodic progress review of this initiative,
anticipated at a minimum yearly, and will update the research
activities and priorities, taking into consideration advances from
private sector and international entities. Formats for review may
include, for example:
<bullet> a novel peer-consultation panel review by
representatives from the NNI member agencies, practitioners
from industry and academia, and representatives from NGOs
conducted in a public venue,
<bullet> a review via the NIST National Research Council (NRC)
Laboratory Assessment Program, and
<bullet> a review via the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology.
Facilitate partnerships with industry. Through its interactions with
the NNI and the NEHI Working Group, NIST will explore and develop
mechanisms with participating agencies for partnering with industry to
support priority research that reduces risk uncertainty facing the
range of businesses and industry sectors that are commercializing
nanomaterials for beneficial and practical applications.
Coordinate efforts internationally. Participate actively in
international efforts related to EHS research, particularly in the work
of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN), e.g.,
WPMN efforts to develop internationally agreed EHS research priorities,
testing protocols, and predictive tools.
Focus on development of consensus-based documentary standards to
support oversight of nanomaterials research. Participate in and support
efforts by national and international standards development
organizations to develop nanotechnology-related documentary standards
particularly those related to EHS research.
Facilitate wide dissemination of research results. Participate in and
support activities aimed at broadly disseminating available information
about EHS aspects of nanomaterials. Such activities include those
already underway in the OECD WPMN, and the ISO Technical Committee on
Nanotechnologies (TC 229) Working Group on Health, Safety, and
Environment.
This initiative builds upon existing NIST expertise. NIST is
already engaged in collaborative efforts with the FDA to address
metrology needs that will enable physical and chemical characterization
of nanoparticles as well as bio-compatibility studies. These
interactions will continue under this initiative. Additional
interactions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) for safety evaluations of nanomaterials are planned with
laboratories on the main campus in Morgantown, WV. EPA has identified
four key research themes in its recently released draft Nanotechnology
Research Strategy that are designed to provide leadership for the NNI
and support the science needs of the EPA. These are: (1) sources, fate,
transport, and exposure; (2) human health and ecological research to
inform risk assessment and test methods; (3) risk assessment methods
and case studies; and (4) preventing and mitigating risks. NIST's
initiative on nanoEHS will support the development of instrumentation,
analytical methods, and standards that will be essential to meeting the
demands to understand and manage nanoEHS research under these four
themes at EPA.
Ultimately, NIST will take a leadership role in coordinating and
communicating with the regulatory agencies, and will facilitate the
ongoing adaptation of NNI research priorities to new discoveries and
new materials through its continued interactions with the NNI member
agencies via participation on the NEHI interagency working group.
Q4b. What is the process by which NIST determines the nanotechnology
research needs of these regulatory agencies?
A4b. As one in 20 of the 26 NNI agencies that participate in the
Nanomaterials Environmental Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group
(WG), NIST contributes and serves effectively to coordinate the
planning and implementation of the Federal EHS nanotechnology research
and activities. Through this process, the NEHI WG creates the framework
that supports a robust, proactive process for identifying,
prioritizing, and addressing EHS research needs with respect to
nanotechnology. Moreover, the NEHI WG operates on a consensus basis. As
a result, reports and documents created by the WG, reflecting the
priority research needs of the regulatory agencies, have broad approval
from all member agencies. Such reports reflect the input of appropriate
experts within the regulatory agencies. Research needs are presented
from the perspective of mission specific activities. NIST participates
in the process of building consensus, enabling NIST to fulfill its part
of the research activity and through that work, address the needs of
the regulatory agencies.
Q5. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L.
108-153) tasks NIST with disseminating nanotechnology research results
to small- and medium-sized manufacturers through the MEP program. If
federal support for MEP is eliminated, how will NIST carry out this
statutory requirement?
A5. NIST will rely on its laboratories to help disseminate its
nanotechnology research results to smaller manufacturers. All of the
NIST laboratories, including the Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology (CNST), play an active role in transferring both knowledge
and technology to industry--and this includes both large and small
companies as well as the universities that are engaged in
nanotechnology. This takes place on a regular basis as the normal
course of business at NIST via publications, seminars, as well as
direct contact and collaborative research.
Q6. In FY08, NIST is receiving about 20 percent of its research budget
from funds transferred from other agencies. How does NIST ensure that
this external funding does not interfere with its core mission? How
does NIST ensure that acceptance of external funding does not
jeopardize its position as an independent technical authority?
A6. NIST ensures that external funding does not interfere with its core
mission by having and applying clear policies and guidelines for
accepting other agency funding and by being selective in its ultimate
decisions.In keeping with its authorizing legislation, NIST provides
unique measurement services and makes available its technical
competence for the support of important missions of other Federal
Government agencies, including agencies where mandatory measurement and
test standards are embodied in regulations which may be essential to
enforcement responsibilities, e.g., law enforcement, and fair and
rational management of the Nation's technology.
The Congress recognizes this role by encouraging and directing NIST
to work with other agencies on a number of issues including: the
Election Assistance Commission on voting system testing and
certification, and DHS on first responder communications inter-
operability.
NIST ensures that acceptance of external funding does not
jeopardize its position as an independent technical authority by
strictly avoiding conflict of interests and maintaining high standards
of scientific research and ethical conduct.
Any proposed other agency work must meet at least one of the
following criteria before NIST can accept the work:
1. Acceptance by NIST establishes traceability of measurements
to national standards.
2. Private sector cannot or will not develop test methods for
materials, mechanisms, and structures related to items
purchased by the government or important to the public
interest.
3. Support services to other agencies authorized or mandated
by specific legislation.
4. A contract placed outside the Federal Government would
result in an unavoidable conflict of interest.
5. Requirements for accuracy of physical constants and
properties of materials cannot be met by other sources.
6. Unique capability of NIST required for support services to
other agency.
7. Use of a private sector source by the other agency would
cause significant and intolerable delays in providing services
and results.
8. Use of a private sector source by the other agency would
result in a higher cost to the government.
Q7. The Committee noted that this year's Budget Requests for FEMA,
NSF, and USGS did not specifically request FY 2009 funding for the
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). As the agency
chairing the interagency working group on this program, what measures
did NIST take to ensure a coordinated budget process? Are the NEHRP
related activities of these agencies coordinated with NIST's? Please
describe what the FY 2009 will entail at each agency.
A7. NEHRP leadership is provided by the Interagency Coordinating
Committee (ICC), which includes the directors of the NEHRP agencies, as
well as the directors of OMB and OSTP. The ICC submitted the Annual
Report of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to the
House of Representatives' Science and Technology Committee staff in
March 2008, which contains much valuable information. This report is
also available on the web at http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/
2008NEHRPAnnualReport.pdf. Table 2.2 (page 8) of the report lists the
agencies' FY 2008 enacted budgets, while Table 2.3 of the annual report
lists their FY 2009 requested budgets (page 9).
As reported on page 3 of the Annual Report, the ICC members agreed
in mid-2007 to a formal process of unified interagency program planning
with coordinated budget requests, commencing with the FY 2010 budget
request. While this formal agreement was not in place for the FY 2009
budget, the agencies nevertheless worked closely together as they
prepared their respective budgets. Table B.1 (page 66) of the Annual
Report lists the various formal NEHRP meetings that occurred in FY
2007. The ICC met three times. The Program Coordination Working Group
(PCWG), which is composed of working-level representatives of the four
agencies and chaired by NIST, met 10 times during FY 2007. Similarly,
the ICC and PCWG have continued to meet in FY 2008. Budget and
interagency coordination discussions occur at almost all of the ICC and
PCWG meetings. In addition, the NEHRP Director (a NIST research
engineer) is in constant communication with the other agencies'
representatives to coordinate their activities.
As the agencies prepared their FY 2009 NEHRP budget requests, they
worked toward maintaining their already ongoing activities that
contribute to the Nation's earthquake preparedness, and also began
addressing the nine Strategic Priorities that the agencies have
identified in the new draft NEHRP Strategic Plan that is now undergoing
public review prior to its formal adoption. This draft plan may be
found on the web at: http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/
NEHRP<INF>-</INF>StrategicPlan<INF>-</INF>Draft.pdf
The ICC has agreed on future directions for the program through the
Strategic Priorities. The NEHRP Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazard
Reduction (ACEHR), which is composed of 16 of the Nation's leading
earthquake professionals, has reviewed and strongly endorsed these
priorities. The agencies have agreed strongly on these priorities and
intend to focus on addressing them, as resources are available,
commencing in FY 2009. All but one of the priorities will by design
require interagency cooperation and coordination, to underscore the
importance of interagency cooperation as key to the success of the
overall endeavor.
The agencies are each supporting the strategic priorities in a
manner that is agency-appropriate. For FEMA, the President's budget
request for FY 2009 supports the strategic priorities by including an
increase for State assistance, which has historically been a vital part
of NEHRP but has not been prominent in recent years. To help address
strategic priorities, NIST has a significant increase in the FY 2009
request, under the auspices of the American Competitiveness Initiative,
for development and implementation of Advanced Earthquake Risk
Mitigation Technologies and Practices and further development of
techniques for Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. In
keeping with its overarching mission of supporting fundamental science
and engineering, NSF does not specifically direct funding to the NEHRP
strategic priorities or to supporting the existing research
infrastructure. Rather, NSF highlights the NEHRP priorities in its
research solicitations, thus encouraging the researchers it supports to
link their activities to the NEHRP priority areas.
NSF will encourage investigators to propose curiosity-driven basic
research that could contribute toward the priority areas. Because of
anticipated NEHRP budget reductions, USGS will focus on maintaining its
ongoing NEHRP activities that include seismic monitoring and hazard
assessment.
Questions submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey
Q1. How many researchers will NIST support in the expanded JILA? What
is the annual value of the utility services provided to JILA by the
University of Colorado?
A1. The proposed expansion will allow the number of graduate and post-
doctoral students studying at JILA each year to increase from
approximately 170 to 250. This represents approximately a 10 percent
increase in the national training capacity for this critical field.
At JILA, there are currently 28 senior scientists (JILA Fellows),
and approximately 125 graduate and 45 post-doctoral students. Of the
JILA researchers, nine Fellows and six post-doctoral students are
members of the NIST Quantum Physics Division. The remaining researchers
are University of Colorado faculty and students funded by various
State, federal and private sources.
The University of Colorado pays 50 percent of utility services
provided to JILA. For reference, the utility costs from July 1, 2006 to
June 30, 2007 for JILA totaled approximately $535 thousand and half was
paid by the University of Colorado.
Q2. One of the new initiatives in your request is for implementation
of a new program focused on the reducing inefficiencies in global
supply chains. You state that one of your major goals will be the
development of development roadmaps for standards ``in target industry
sectors.'' How will NIST determine which industry sectors to target?
A2. CNIST uses a variety of means to guide programmatic activities. In
this case, a series of economic studies were performed by the Research
Triangle Institute for NIST to assess the cost of inadequate inter-
operability. These studies demonstrate that the U.S. loses billions of
dollars due to lack of inter-operability. Market-specific losses
include at least $1 billion per year for engineering data transfer in
the automotive sector,\1\ $5 billion in the transportation sector
(including automotive and aerospace) \2\, and $15.8 billion in the
construction sector.\3\ These industrial sectors are targeted in this
initiative based on the magnitude of their inter-operability losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inter-operability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply
Chain (NIST Planning Report #99-1)
\2\ Economic Impact of Inadequate Infrastructure for Supply Chain
Integration (NIST Planning Report #04-2)
\3\ Cost Analysis of Inadequate Inter-operability in the U.S.
Capital Facilities Industry (NIST GCR 04-867, 2004)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James W. Serum, Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on
Advanced Technology; President, Scitek Ventures LLC
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. Is NIST's current level of investment in cyber security adequate?
What are the areas of cyber security in which NIST can have the
greatest impact, given its specific competencies?
A1. Cyber security is critical to the economic and national security
interests of the United States and NIST is essential to the success of
our country's cyber security efforts with research programs that
address topics as diverse as the development of measurement systems
necessary to evaluate the efficacy of current cyber security strategies
to developing the most advanced and secure quantum encryption
technologies available. As part of the NIST's proposed budget growth
under the ACI and now under the COMPETES Act, NIST has been working to
grow its programs and capabilities in this essential area with
initiatives submitted in FY07, FY08, and FY09. Unfortunately, NIST is
chronically under funded and the full potential of NIST in these areas
remains unrealized.
Increased investment would enable NIST to assist in the propagation
of measurement software to assess the level of cyber-infection, botnet
growth, spam, and other cyber-hazards found in computers connected to
the Internet or on private corporate and government networks. There is
no reason for NIST to compete with commercial sector companies in the
production of anti-virus (or anti-malware) tools, but NIST can be very
helpful in the development of metrics and measures of gross infections
in computers in the government, private sector, and general user
population. NIST can also be very helpful in analyzing risks associated
with the aggregation of health and financial information and the
protection of such information from unauthorized access and use. Given
sufficient funding NIST is poised to have significant impact in a
number of fundamental security technologies such as: cryptography, risk
management, biometrics, tokens, industrial controls, operating system
security, security protocols, authentication, and quantum encryption.
In addition, NIST has experience in design usability of information
systems and can establish broad based framework solutions that cut
across independent, proprietary solutions. Furthermore, NIST has the
strategic relationships with IT system developers and vendors to
promote adoption of the research results.
Q2. How did NIST determine the size of the FY09 biotechnology
initiative ($10 million)? Is this level of funding adequate? How should
NIST identify the appropriate external strategic partners to work with
in expanding its investments in the life sciences?
A2. NIST has for many years, recognized the importance of bioscience
research as part of its overall Healthcare Program, however, as NIST is
chronically underfunded and is simultaneously called upon to support
critical measurement needs in a number of fields, the VCAT Bioscience/
Healthcare Subcommittee considers the NIST funds available to target
challenges in the Biosciences and Healthcare to be grossly inadequate
and new funding is required. We, the VCAT, have worked closely with the
NIST staff, with excellent synergy, to focus and direct research to
areas of greatest need in bioscience. NIST has been working to ensure
that their projected budget growth under the ACI is targeted to have
maximum impact. As part of this planning process, NIST has determined
that expanding their capabilities to address the measurements and
standards needs of the biotech and life sciences communities is of key
strategic importance. NIST has defined its role in the biosciences as
leveraging its expertise in the quantitative physical and informational
sciences to provide the measurement infrastructure necessary for
enabling increased innovation in this area, and to provide confidence
for measurements of complex biological systems. To develop a robust
measurement capability, NIST has been reaching out to stakeholders that
include government, industry, and academia (examples include: FDA, NIH,
Pharma, Amgen, Genetech, Merck, the Institute for Systems Biology,
California Institute of Technology, the Mayo Clinic, and other
organizations) to identify critical measurement needs of the
biosciences community. The FY 2009 initiative, Measurements and
Standards to Accelerate Innovation in the Biosciences, reflects this
input. It targets the need for quantitative, traceable measurements and
standards for biomarkers, the ability to quantitatively make
simultaneous multiplexed measurements of multiple biological molecules
(including genes, proteins, RNA, etc.), and the informatics and
computational tools and standards to manage and manipulate the
tremendous amounts of data generated by biological experimentation.
Given the range of NIST budget growth in FY 2009 under the President's
proposal and the other priority areas that also require additional
resources, NIST leadership felt that the $10 million requested in the
President's budget for this initiative would provide a sufficient
amount of resources to begin to acquire the appropriate expertise and
resources necessary for building up a foundation to meet anticipated
future needs in biosciences measurement. We, the VCAT, agree that this
is a good beginning but the amount should be significantly increased in
coming years. It is our understanding that NIST plans additional growth
in this area in the coming years.
As NIST expands investments in the life sciences, they plan to
continue to work with stakeholders to continue our efforts in
identifying other critical measurements and standards needs. As part of
this planning process, NIST is working with the University of Maryland
Biotechnology Institute to sponsor a meeting entitled ``Accelerating
Innovation in 21st Century Biosciences: Identifying the Measurement
Standards and Technological Challenges.'' The meeting will be held from
October 20-22, 2008, at NIST and will be open to leaders from industry,
academia, and government. Details of the meeting can be found at http:/
/www.cstl.nist.gov/Biosciences.html. Input from this meeting and other
outreach activities will form the basis of NIST's strategic plan for
future program expansion in the biosciences. NIST intends to reach out
intensively to a wide cross-section of the biosciences and health
community to ensure that they are properly focused and resourced. VCAT
has participated in this planning process and supports the activities
as they are currently defined. External feedback will also be gained
through a variety of one-on-one meetings as well as group contacts with
key players in the field. We believe that this activity will indeed
assist them in developing a comprehensive Strategic Plan and provide
the foundation for greater investment in this critical area of
measurement science.
Q3. In each of the last five years, NIST has spent approximately 20
percent of its research budget on nanotechnology, the highest
percentage of all the agencies in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. Is this an appropriate level of investment in this one
technology area? How is NIST ensuring that nanotechnology work is
coordinated across labs?
A3. On the surface, a 20 percent investment in nanotechnology seems
high. However, the VCAT Nanotechnology subcommittee has been deeply
involved with the NIST staff during the past two years and we support
the efforts underway. A deeper dive into applications of nanotechnology
and the actual research being conducted at NIST supports their current
level of research. The focus of a majority of research at NIST is the
advancement and application of measurement science. This work relies
increasingly upon advances at the nanoscale--one billionth of a meter--
and smaller (the single atom, ion, photon, electron, etc.) It is a
natural development as the capabilities and needs of science and
industry have advanced, and it has been part of NIST's measurement
science strategy before the term ``nanotechnology'' became commonly
used.
The label nanotechnology is, in fact, a broad one, linked mainly to
the size at which a material is being fabricated or examined. So it is
relevant to multiple disciplines ranging from physics, chemistry, and
materials science to electronics, building and fire research, and
information technology. That also makes nanotechnology relevant to many
scientific and engineering advances and industrial applications being
pursued by the customers served by NIST--and makes NIST measurement-
oriented contributions important to the nanotechnology revolution. This
multi-disciplinary, multi-sector involvement explains the relatively
high percentage of work at NIST that is classified as nanotechnology.
It should be expected that a good percentage of NIST's work in
nanotechnology also can be classified with other labels, such as
``materials science'' or ``bioscience'' or ``electronics.'' This work
is conducted and prioritized by current and future needs of industry,
academia, and government for measurement-based advances. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative is the overarching government effort to
identify and address nanotechnology needs, and NIST's priorities are
derived from this cooperative planning effort and supplemented by
information provided by NIST's primary customers and potential
customers in industry, academia, and government.
The Nanotechnology: Discovery to Manufacture initiative and the
Nanotechnology: Environment, Health, and Safety Infrastructure
initiative are two FY 2009 budget initiatives that tackle specific
challenges in the development and manufacture of nano-devices, or
products incorporating nanomaterials. Both of these initiatives were
mapped out and planned after significant consultation and coordination
with multiple stakeholders through interagency working groups, and
technical workshops. Moreover, it fits into a multi-year matrix of
phased investments in nanotechnology that NIST developed with the
active involvement of leaders of all laboratories at NIST working on
nanotechnology. The final decision about these planned, phased
investments was made by the NIST Director.
I have addressed the question of NIST coordination and cooperation
within NNI and across government and research organizations. The VCAT
has also worked with NIST staff in creating an effective coordinating
function within their own laboratories. Consistent with VCAT's
recommendation in 2008, NIST has recently established a Nano-
Information Council under the direction of CNST Director Bob Celotta to
facilitate the coordination of nano-related work.
Questions submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey
Q1. You state in your testimony that the quality of strategic planning
within NIST varies, but the agency has been largely successful in
soliciting the views and needs of outside collaborators from industry.
What areas need improvement?
A1. As indicated in my congressional testimony, during the past five
years, VCAT has repeatedly emphasized the need for improved strategic
planning throughout the NIST organization. We have observed a
progressive improvement in their strategic planning process. In
response to the planned budget doubling outlined in the American
Competitiveness Initiative, NIST fully recognizes the need for a
comprehensive strategic plan and has developed a strategic approach
that is intended to establish the programs, plans, and infrastructure
necessary to more than double NIST's impact on the economy. As part of
this plan they indicate that they will:
1) Target research efforts on technologies that are set to
drive innovation in the 21st century
2) Identify and address the critical measurement barriers to
innovation.
3) Evaluate NIST's facilities to ensure adequate capacity and
capabilities exist to meet current and projected industry and
university needs.
4) Support academia and industry by enhancing the capabilities
and capacity of NIST's User Facilities.
5) Develop an expanded federal tool set for support of
technology innovation and industrial competitiveness.
One of the greatest challenges of strategic planning for NIST
relates to the tremendous diversity of critical measurement research
across a wide number of industrial sectors within their ``mission.''
They must educate a broad number of employees to understand the
strategic planning process and to make strategic planning pervasive
across the entire organization. Not all NIST research should fit neatly
into the strategic plan (by design to encourage basic innovation
research) but the senior staff must carefully determine those projects
that should fit into the strategic plan and assure that the direction
and priorities of the projects meet the strategic goals and schedules.
Q2. In your testimony you warn that ``ad hoc'' studies may distract
from the mission and vision of the agency. What evidence did the VCAT
see that suggested this possible problem?
A2. The VCAT believes that NIST is significantly under funded in many
areas relative to the importance of measurement science to the U.S.
Economy and National Security. Project ``initiatives'' that are funded
at a base level to get a technology program launched too often languish
due to lack of funds in subsequent years. VCAT has consistently urged
NIST to implement a stronger strategic planning process and they have
made good progress in this area. A good strategic plan has goals and
milestones of scientific accomplishment which industry depends on to be
achieved. Diversions of resources and funds to ``ad hoc'' programs,
however important, can impede ongoing programs that have critical
strategic and economic importance. The VCAT has observed that NIST
receives many ``assignments'' from Congress and the Executive Branch,
including OMB that can take people and resources away from NIST's
planned research programs. The point I was making in my testimony is
that Congress and the Administration need to be aware of the potential
for those assignments to distract from already agreed upon priorities,
especially when additional resources are not provided in order to
accomplish those tasks. For example, NIST has received numerous IT-
related assignments that pertain to how federal agencies can improve
the effectiveness and security of their operations. The World Trade
Center Disaster and the Voting system and standards are other examples.
Even when additional funds are added for these types of projects, NIST
may spend significant portions of their normal research funds to
complete these important ad hoc projects. I should emphasize that we
believe, in most cases that NIST is the appropriate organization for
these research projects to be undertaken due to its measurement
research expertise. However, they do have an impact on the effective
implementation of their strategic programs and plans. Unless the agency
receives funding to perform this work, its research-oriented priorities
will suffer.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mary L. Good, George W. Donaghey Professor and Dean,
Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
Question submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey
Q1. Can you elaborate on the suggestion in your testimony that the
Baldrige National Quality Award needs to be more closely aligned with
NIST's strategic plan?
A1. ``The Baldrige National Quality Award'' has had a significant
impact on companies and organizations that have followed the Baldrige
guidelines and submitted nominations for the award. The value of this
program is widely accepted. Strategically the Award program should
mirror NIST interests in manufacturing, nanotechnology, science
education, etc. It would provide great potential for meaningful
interactions with these segments of the American enterprise that NIST
can influence.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Comments on NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
Robert D. ``Skip'' Rung
President and Executive Director
Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI)
Introduction
Chairman Wu and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on a matter that touches a subject of great
passion for me and also, I believe, of great importance for the
continued economic and social health of our nation.
Success at science-based innovation--the current cutting edge of
which just happens to be called ``nanotechnology''--is critical for
U.S. economic competitiveness, for the supply of jobs with sufficiently
high productivity to offer wage levels Americans have come to expect,
and for the prosperity that pays for all the social goods, such as
health and education, we would like to keep intact for future
generations.
Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, Oregon's first
Signature Research Center, has so far received $37M from the Oregon
Innovation Council because they know that success in the global
competition for jobs and prosperity completely depends on a traded
sector that wins through innovation--fueled by research and
entrepreneurship. And that is the dual mission of ONAMI--growth in
scientific research by means of deep inter-institutional and industry
collaborations, and job growth at Oregon employers commercializing that
research. I think we're an interesting case. We are a small state, but
have arguably the world's most powerful collection of industrial
``small tech'' R&D assets--Intel and HP's top research sites, FEI,
Invitrogen--Molecular Probes. But we have no wealthy private university
and are not a traditional venture capital hot spot. Still, we know for
certain that our research quality and creative ideas are competitive
with anyone's, and therefore we should be able to grow our
entrepreneurial sector.
Thus, one of ONAMI's core activities--coupled with our own set of
user facilities--is a commercialization fund that makes grants to
bridge the very real gap between what research agencies pay for and
what ``pencils out'' for investors. We have so far enabled three very
promising microtechnology spin-out companies and four nanotechnology
spin-out companies.
It is interesting that today, in contrast to 30 years ago, most
high-risk and disruptive innovation--not just technology research, but
getting to market--takes place in small companies, many of them
venture-backed startups. Venture money originating in pension funds,
university endowments and the bank accounts of high net worth
individuals turns out to be more patient and risk-tolerant than
corporate cash, and large companies increasingly innovate by
acquisition and open technology sourcing--from small companies. This is
why there needs to be intense focus on making U.S. nanotechnology
entrepreneurs successful; understanding and addressing the myriad
hurdles and challenges they face. For example, a $2M regulatory
compliance cost that is easily absorbed by a Fortune 500 company is a
deal killer for the entrepreneur who's inventing our future.
Specific to nanotechnology, then, what are the hurdles? They
include the greater expense and time required for proof-of-concept
demonstration, comparatively high capital requirements, the need for
convenient access to specialized facilities and expertise, and often
very complicated technology licensing situations. And this is not to
mention the growing burden of regulatory compliance and related
uncertainty. Investors see these things as risks and act accordingly.
For all these reasons, the appetite of venture capital for
nanotechnology has turned out to be less than many hoped and expected.
This may not necessarily be the case overseas as hungry global
competitors such as China place a higher relative value on economic
development.
To address these hurdles, the Bayh-Dole Act has enabled
universities to own and out-license federally funded research results,
and in the process provide an incentive to faculty inventors. The NNI
has established 13 user facilities at universities--with no recent
additions, and the national labs have various access mechanisms, though
they are mostly geared for publishable research and expensive for
business to use. SBIR and STTR are vital programs and a lifeline for
many innovative small businesses, including for our own lead
nanotechnology spin-out, Crystal Clear Technologies. The new Technology
Innovation Program (TIP) is an important ``next level up'' opportunity
that has the potential to accelerate commercialization of disruptive
technology by small- and medium-sized American businesses which will
need to demonstrate significant excellence, competitiveness and
commitment to win one of these prestigious awards.
Comments Specific to TIP
Based on my reading of the authorizing law (P.L. 110-69, Sec.
3012), I believe the TIP program will be a significant improvement over
the ATP program which it supersedes. First, it concentrates funding
where it is most needed and most likely to result in
commercialization--in small and medium businesses. Second, it allows
research institutions to lead proposals, which in some cases will be
the most effective mechanism--particularly when a new company with
significant participation and backing from the institution is being
launched. As a state technology program, we are glad to see the
requirement for TIP to cooperate and coordinate with us. We greatly
look forward to this, and in fact are happy to say that TIP director
Marc Stanley will be visiting Oregon later this month to talk about the
program with our business and investment community.
TIP retains two very important and attractive aspects of the ATP.
First, the awards are large enough to enable significant projects.
Second, the proposal and decision process is fast. I hope that the
contracting and disbursement phases will be rapid as well, since time
is very precious to innovative businesses striving for success in a
very competitive world. Thus the ratio of proposal effort to potential
reward is more favorable than is the case with Phase I SBIR and STTR
awards. (I strongly encourage the Committee to consider of raising the
size of these awards, as I know Chairman Wu has suggested.)
From the point of view of a small, innovative business trying to
commercialize risky but disruptive technology, I do see some TIP
requirements that could prove daunting, so I suggest that the Committee
discuss these and consider possible modifications to the program as
experience is gained.
The main concern is the 50 percent or greater cost share
requirement (i.e., maximum 50 percent federal share, all sources).
Small or medium businesses will have great difficulty finding these
funds unless they are already highly profitable. An idea to consider is
some form of sliding scale where the federal share can perhaps be
higher for smaller businesses and/or for award amounts that are well
below the maximum request levels.
A related concern, again for smaller and investor-backed
businesses, is the requirement that alternative project funding be
sought--unsuccessfully. In order to fund their required 50 percent or
greater share of total project cost, small businesses will almost
always need some form of alternative funding from investors or
customers--and the program seems to say that this should not be
possible! Perhaps this matter simply needs some language clarification.
The overarching point, however, is to consider the realistic funding
environment for small businesses, and to make sure that participation
in the TIP program is not unreasonably out of reach for them.
To summarize, I am very glad to see that the TIP program has been
established and funded in FY08. I encourage its continuation,
improvement in the light of experience, and increased funding in future
years.