U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–124PDF 2012

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE 

OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 

Serial No. 112–66 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Benjamin Quayle, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Discussion 33 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology ........... 40 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted by Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology ............................................................................................................ 50 

(1) 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE 

OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Quayle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RA~PH M HALL. lEXAS 

CHAII1MA"J lOOIf- BERNICE JOHf\;SON. IE_ >\1\S 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDiNG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Hearing 

An Overview of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2013 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

11 :00 a.m. - I :00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Or. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 

Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 
3 

1. Purpose 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY ANn INNOVATION 

HEARING CHARTER 

All Overview of the Natiollal Illstitute of Stalldards alld 

Techllology Budgetfor Fiscal Year 20/3 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of the House 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing to examine the 

Administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 (FYI3) 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. 

2. Witness 

Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Conuneree for Standards and Technology and 

Director. National Institute of Standards and Technology 

3. Hearing Overview 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-regulatory agency within 

the Department of Commerce. Originally founded in 190 I as the National Bureau of Standards, 

NISI's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial compctitivcness by advancing 

measurement science, standards. and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 

improve our quality of life. By working closely alongside industry. NIST has become 

recognized as a provider of high-quality infonnation utilized by the private sector. 

NIST operates two main research laboratories in Gaithersburg, Maryland. and Boulder. 

Colorado. as well as radio stations in Hawaii and Colorado. NIST also maintains partnerships 

with the Hollings Marine Labs in Charleston, South Carolina, the JILA joint institute operated 

with the University of Colorado, and the Ccnter for Advanced Research in Biotechnology 

(CARB) and the loint Quantum Institute, both operated in conjunction with the University of 

Maryland. 
4 

NISI employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, support, and administrative 

personnel. In addition, NISI annually hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users from 

academia, industry, and other government agencies, NIST also partners with 1.300 

manufacturing specialists and staff at about 350 Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 

service locations around the country. I 

National Institute for Standards and Teellnology (NT.'iT) Spending Uollars 1I1 fJHlli < JJ1~) 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY12 Enacted 

Account Actual Enacted Request $ % 

Scientific & Technical Research and 

Services (STRS) 507.0 567.0 648.0 81.0 14.3 

Construction of Research Facilities 

(CRF) 69.9 55.4 60.0 4.6 8.3 

Industrial Technology Services (ITS) 173.3 128.4 149.0 20.6 16.0 

Technology Innovation Program 

(TIP) I 69.9 0 0 0 0 

Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) 124.7 128.4 128 (0.4) -03 

Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia (AMTech) • .. .. 210 210 100.0 

Baldrige Perfonnance Excellence 

PrOJ1fam" 9.6 0 0 0 0 

Totals: 750.2 750.8 857.0 106.2 14.1 

* nt'll' II11!ta11Ve 

NIST Budget Summary 

The FY 13 budget request for NIST is $857 million, an increase of $1 06.2 million or 14.1 percent 

from the FY12 enacted level. The budget for NIST is divided into three main accounts: 

Scientitic and Technical Research and Services (STRS), Construction of Research Facilities 

(CRF), and Industrial Technology Services (ITS). The FY13 budget request also includes plans 

for two mandatory appropriations: The Wireless Innovation Fund (WIN), which will be 

provided up to $300 million from hroadband spectrum auction proceeds; and the National 

Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), a legislative proposal for $1 billion in 

mandatory funding to promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad 

applications. 

NIST FYJ3 Budget Priorities 

The budget request would provide $648 million jor NISI's Core LaboratOlY research programs 

in the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS), an increase of $81.0 million. The 

I http:'/\\,\\\.nist2oy,'public affairs/flencra! infomlation.cfm ({ :pdated FebruaI)" 3,2012), 

2 
5 

SIRS request focuses on the following initiatives: supporting Advanced Manufacturing activities 

($45 million): creating a competitive grant program for Universities to establish NIST Centers of 

Excellence ($20 million); addressing challenges within Forensic Science ($5 million), Advanced 

Communications ($10 million), and Disaster Resilience ($5 million); and continued support for 

National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cybcrspace (NSTIC) ($8 million). 

The budget request provides $149 million for NISrs Industrial Technology Services (ITS) 

programs, including $128 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, 

and $21 million for the creation of an Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMTech) 

Consortia Program. 

The breadth of technology in the U.S economy results in a broad technical portfolio for NISI. 

The NIST programs must maintain technical leadership in measurcment science, while also 

responding effectively to the rapid pace of technological innovation. NIST uses a 

comprchensive annual planning process to develop program priorities that support NlST's 

mission to promote economic prosperity and job creation in a technology-based economy2 (See 

Appendix A for NIST Strategic Goals and Programmatic Planning Priorities.) 

Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) 

The FYJ3 NIST budget request for Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) is 

$648 million, an increase of$8lmillion or 14.3 percent over the FYI21evel. and contains an 

increase of $45 million in measurement sciencc research for advanced manufacturing. The 

budget request also includes $20 million to establish four competitively selected Centers t(lT 

Excellence in measurement science areas ddined by NIST. Under this program. grants would be 

awarded to multi or single university centers for five to seven years to provide an 

interdisciplinary environment where NIST. academic, and industry researchers can collaborate 

on basic and applied research focused on innovations in measurement science and new 

technology development. 

In order to advance measurement science, standards, and technology, NIST cUlTcntly operates 

six lahoratory units: 

• Material Measurement Laboratory (MML): The MML serves as the national 

reference laboratory for measurements in the chemical, biological, and material sciences. 

The MML provides measurement services used by a broad set of industries including but 

not limited to: hcalthcare (biomarkers), renewable energy (measuring the quality of fuels) 

and forensic science (biometric identification techniques). 

• Physical Measurement Laboratory (PLM): The PLM develops and disseminates the 

national standards of measurement, e.g., length. mass, force and shock, acceleration, time 

and frequency, electricity. temperature. humidity and pressure. This information supports 

consistent timekeeping, on which many technologies likc GPS rely, and underpins the 

safety of our national electricity grid. 

2 Sa/follal [nstifute o/5'laIlJards alld Technology Fiscal rear 10 J 3 Budgl!! Submissi{)n to C ongress_ Oyt:f\ lew p. 9. 

3 
6 

• Engineering Laboratory (EL): The EL develops and disseminates advanced 

manufacturing and construction technologies, guidelines, and services to the U.S. 

manufacturing and construction industries. Examples of EL work include researching 

ways to reduce the spread of fire in residential buildings and developing perfonnance 

metrics for advanced manufacturing processes. 

• Information Technology Laboratory (ITL): The ITL develops and disseminates 

standards, measurements, and testing for interoperability, security, usability, and 

reliability of infonnation systems, including cyber security standards and guidelines for 

federal agencies and U.S. industry. ITL works in areas such as cloud computing, health 

inforn13tion technology, and advanced voting technologies. 

• Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST): The CNST is the only 

national nanotechnology center focused on commerce. The facility offers shared space 

utilized by a variety of public and private stakeholders - for nanoscale fabrication and 

measurement, and develops illiovative nanoscale measurement and fabrication 

capabilities. 

• Center for Neutron Research (NCNR): The NCNR provides a national user facility, 

utilized by universities, government and industry, to study neutron-based measurement 

capabilities. The level of measurement capabilities is unavailable anywhere else in the 

country, allowing researchers to answer questions in nanoscience and technology with a 

broad range of applications. 

NIST Centers of Excellellce 

In FYI3, NIST has requested $20 million to provide grants to establish lour competitively 

selected Centers of Excellence (COE) in measurement sciences in areas defined by NIST, to 

leverage and expand NIST research capabilities. Each COE would provide an environment 

in whieh NIST, academia, and industry collaborate in pursuing early stage basic and applied 

research focused on innovations in measurement science and emerging technology areas. 

Constructio11 of Research Facilities (CRF) 

The FY 13 budget request for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) is $60 million, an 8.3 

percent increase over the FYI2 enacted level. CRF funding would support maintenance and 

repair of existing NIST buildings ($48.2 million) as well as continue the interior renovation 

efforts of Building I on the NIST-Boulder campus ($1 1.8 million). 

Industrial Technology Sen'ices (ITS) 

In addition to the NIST laboratories, NIST manages several extramural programs supporting 

industry. The FY13 budget request for Industrial Technology Services (ITS) is $149 million, an 

increase of$20.6 million or 16 percent over the FY12 level. 

The $128 million request for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is a $0.4 

million or 0.3 percent decrease from the FYI2 level. The MEP program is a public/private 

partnership nm by Centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rieo that provides technical assistance for 

small and medium-sized manufacturers to modernize their operations and adapt to foreign 

competition. MEP Centers are supported by equal contributions from federal funds, state funds, 

and industry client fees. 

4 
7 

The FY 13 budget request includes $21.0 million for the proposed Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia (AMTech) Program. This program was also included in the FYI2 budget 

request, but it did not receive funding. Modeled after the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative 

(NRI). a partnership between NSF. NIST, industry, and universities across the nation, the 

AMTech program would establish industry-led consortia to identify and prioritize research 

projects supporting long-tenn industrial research needs. The program would provide cost-shared 

funding to consortia that are focused on developing advanced technologies to address major 

technical problems that inhibit development and widespread adoption of advanced 

manufacturing capabilitics in the United States. 

National Networkfor Manufacturing Inllomtion (NNMI) 

The FY 13 budget request includes a proposal tor $1 billion in mandatory funding to revitalize 

U.S. manufacturing through the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation (NNMI). The NMMI would represent collaboration between NIST. the Department 

of Defense, the Department of Energy. and the National Science Foundation to promote the 

development of manufacturing technologies with broad applications and to SUppOlt 

manufacturing technology commercialization by bridging the gap between the laboratory and the 

market. 

Wireless Innovation (WIN) FUl1d 

As part of the $7 billion National Wireless Initiative included in the American Jobs Act, the 

Administration has included a plan to invest broadband spectrum auction proceeds in a variety of 

areas, including providing NIST with up to $300 million for a Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund 

to develop innovative wireless technologies. NIST would work with industry and public safety 

organizations to increase the interoperability of public safety communications within the future 

nationwide broadband network. 

5 
8 

APPENDIX A: NIST Strategic Goals and Programmatic Planning3 

NIST Strategic Goals 

NISI'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. With this aim of promoting U.S. imlOvation and industrial 

competitiveness, NIST has established three overarching strategic goals to guide and align 

investments in its programs: 

1. Position NIST to accelerate technology development, promote advanced 

manufacturing, and promote industrial competitiveness. 

• Accclerate and strengthcn engagement in documentary standards. 

• Improve the developmcnt and dclivery ofmeasuremcnt services. 

• Enhancc user access and collaboration at our unique facilities. 

2. Strengthen our core technical and organizational capabilities. 

• Invest in the basic research required to meet the NIST mission. 

• Improve facilities and equipment to ensure NIST maintains a leading measurement 

capability. 

• Develop world-class operations and support activities, especially in safety 

management. 

3. Promote innovation, commercialization, and business growth. 

• Support the acceleration and promotion of innovation through AMTech and other 

programs. 

• Support business success through MEP. 

NIST Programmatic Plal1l1il1g Priorities 

Based on NISI's three strategic goals, and input from customers, stakeholders. Congress. and 

the Administration, NIST plans to continue to invest resources into six priority areas: 

Manufacturing: Improve the competitivcness of U.S. manufacturers through thc development 

and deployment of new, green technologies and better busincss practices. Efforts include focus 

on enhancing high technology manufacturing innovation in products and processes, especially 

nanomanufacturing. resulting in new jobs. 

Information Technology and Cybersccurity: Help to develop more capable, secure. and 

interoperable information systems to ensure U.S. leadership in infonnation technology. Provide 

technical snpport for successful deployment of next generation broadband. Supply 

measurement capabilities necessary for next-generation information technologies. 

"' Sational institute (d Standards al1d rcclm()f()~f!;), Fiscal rear 20 J 3 Bud,get Submission 10 Congress. O\'erview p. 9-10. 

6 
9 

Energy: Speed development of alternative, clean-energy energy sources, from production 

through storage to final distribution. Help to ensure interoperability of Smart Grid devices and 

systems (as assigned in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act). 

Healthcare: Advance cfi()rts aimed at achieving lower-cost, higher-quality health care. 

including development of technologies that ensure more accurate diagnoses, reduce medical 

errors. and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of therapies. Develop standards essential to 

interoperable health-care information systems that seamlessly and accurately share information 

among all health-care providers; and ensure security and privacy of infonnation. 

Environment and Consumer Safety: Promote efficient development of sustainable products 

and processes, from manufacturing to end-use by consumers. Help to establish the scientific 

measurement basis for accurate climate and greenhouse gas emissions measurements. 

Physical Infrastructure: Develop the needed measurement solutions, models. calibration 

inspection methods, and technologies that can be used to predict the remaining life or margins 

of safety for infrastructure systems to prioritize and optimize infrastructure spending. 

7 
10 

Chairman QUAYLE. The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview 

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2013.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today we will be discussing the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and gathering details about NIST’s priorities. I would like to thank Dr. Gallagher for appearing before us today. NIST has been well served 

by your leadership. 

Before getting into the specifics of NIST’s request, I would like 

to briefly discuss the President’s 2013 budget proposal. Unfortunately, the budget submitted by the Administration a few weeks 

ago continues to promote the same failed policies that have made 

our economic situation worse. The President’s budget includes the 

most government spending in history, the biggest tax increase in 

American history, and the biggest debt in history. This proposal increases overall spending $200 billion, to a total of $3.8 trillion, 

nearly a quarter of our gross domestic product. The budget will increase taxes on American families and job creators by $1.9 trillion. 

While paying lip service to the need to cut debt and deficits, under 

the President’s framework, our gross national debt will increase 

from $15 trillion today to approximately $26 trillion ten years from 

now. The Administration has failed to rein in spending and has 

failed to lay out a credible plan for bringing the deficit and debt 

under control. This is unsustainable and irresponsible. 

Today, we examine one portion of that budget proposal, the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for NIST. While NIST 

is a smaller agency, this request does not exist within a vacuum 

and must be weighed in the context of our fiscal situation. NIST 

is a non-regulatory laboratory of the federal government tasked 

with making contributions to our Nation’s innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards 

and technology. NIST works closely alongside industry to make 

sure their activities improve the quality of life of Americans and 

the economic security of our Nation. 

Although we may not be aware of NIST’s impact in our lives, 

NIST research advances a variety of national priorities and challenges related to advanced manufacturing and materials, nanotechnology, cybersecurity, health information technology, advanced 

communications networks, and disaster resilience. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for NIST totals $857 million, 

an increase of $106.2 million, or 14.1 percent, from the fiscal year 

2012 enacted level. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has a long, bipartisan record of support for NIST and its 

contributions. Given the value of NIST research to our Nation’s 

competitiveness, we are strongly supportive of NIST’s scientific and 

technical research and services. We also recognize the work of 

NIST’s industrial technology services. However, I believe we need 

to do a better job of prioritizing our investments, and a 14.1 per-
11 

cent budget increase is simply unrealistic in our current fiscal environment. 

While we can all agree that the research NIST conducts is important for our economy, we simply cannot afford to continue spending 

at these rates, given our current fiscal reality. I have every reason 

to believe that NIST will continue to conduct innovative research 

while seeking ways to improve the efficiency of its programs so that 

this research is undertaken in a fiscally responsible manner. 

I am appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about how fiscal year 2013 funds will be prioritized by NIST, and I thank our 

witness, Dr. Gallagher for his time, today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BEN QUAYLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

Good Morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing. We will be 

discussing the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and gathering details about NIST’s priorities. I would 

like to thank Dr. Gallagher for appearing before us today. NIST has been well 

served by your leadership. 

Before getting into the specifics of NIST’s request, I would like to briefly discuss 

the President’s 2013 budget proposal. Unfortunately, the budget submitted by the 

Administration a few weeks ago continues to promote the same failed policies that 

have made our economic situation worse. The President’s budget includes the most 

government spending in history, the biggest tax increase in American history, and 

the biggest debt in history. 

This proposal increases overall spending $200 billion, to a total of $3.8 trillion— 

nearly a quarter of our gross domestic product (23.3 percent). The budget will increase taxes on American families and job creators by $1.9 trillion. While paying 

lip service to the need to cut debt and deficits, under the President’s framework, 

our gross national debt will increase from $15 trillion today to approximately $26 

trillion ten years from now. The Administration has failed to rein in spending and 

has failed to lay out a credible plan for bringing the deficit and debt under control. 

This is unsustainable and irresponsible. 

Today, we examine one portion of that budget proposal, the President’s FY 2013 

budget request for NIST. While NIST is a smaller agency, this request does not 

exist within a vacuum and must be weighed in the context of our fiscal situation. 

NIST is a non-regulatory laboratory of the federal government tasked with making 

contributions to our Nation’s innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. NIST works closely alongside 

industry to make sure their activities improve the quality of life of Americans and 

the economic security of our Nation. 

Although we may not be aware of NIST’s impact on our lives, NIST research advances a variety of national priorities and challenges related to advanced manufacturing and materials, nanotechnology, cyber security, health information technology, 

advanced communications networks, and disaster resilience. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for NIST totals $857 million, an increase of 

$106.2 million or 14.1 percent from the FY 2012 enacted level. The Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology has a long, bipartisan record of support for NIST 

and its contributions. Given the value of NIST research to our nation’s competitiveness, we are strongly supportive of NIST’s Scientific and Technical Research and 

Services. We also recognize the work of NIST’s Industrial Technology Services. However, I believe we need to do a better job of prioritizing our investments, and a 14.1 

percent budget increase is simply unrealistic in our current fiscal environment. 

While we can all agree that the research NIST conducts is important for our economy, we simply cannot afford to continue spending at these rates, given our current 

fiscal reality. I have every reason to believe that NIST will continue to conduct innovative research while seeking ways to improve the efficiency of its programs so that 

this research is undertaken in a fiscally responsible manner. I am appreciative of 

the opportunity to learn more about how fiscal year 2013 funds will be prioritized 

by NIST, and I thank our witness, Dr. Gallagher for his time, today. 
12 

Chairman QUAYLE. I now recognize the gentlelady from Maryland, the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, for her opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, and thank you very 

much for holding today’s hearing to examine the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2013 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and I want to thank Dr. Gallagher also for 

appearing before us this morning and for your leadership at NIST. 

And while it would be interesting to hold a hearing about the overall budget priorities in the Administration’s budget, our task today 

is really specifically with respect to NIST and putting that into a 

context in which we examine where we want to be in terms of our 

future in manufacturing and research and development and NIST’s 

role in that. And so it is that framework from which I will be asking questions today because I am sure Dr. Gallagher doesn’t have 

expertise on the larger federal budget. 

And although NIST is a relatively small agency, it is an extremely important player in federal efforts to spur innovation and 

economic prosperity in the country, and for more than 100 years, 

NIST has supported the competitiveness of U.S. industry by advancing measurement science, standards and technology. NIST’s 

broad and deep technical expertise, as well as its ability to serve 

as a bridge to U.S. businesses, is really unparalleled. 

And I am pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request draws on the strengths of NIST and gives the agency a 

prominent role in the Administration’s strategy to revitalize American manufacturing, and I think there is no one in this country 

who couldn’t agree that we have to revitalize American manufacturing in order to be competitive for the 21st century, and NIST’s 

role in that is really paramount. 

Since 2000, the United States has lost over 650,000 high-tech 

manufacturing jobs. It is really shocking. Our trade deficit in advanced technology products is growing and China is now the 

world’s biggest exporter of high-technology goods. The truth is that 

our position as the global leader in innovation and technology is 

being threatened as developing nations build up their capabilities 

to become not only the technology assembly line, but also the creator of new and innovative technologies, that is, linking manufacturing with their domestic production capacity. 

The Administration’s budget proposal includes a number of initiatives that can reverse these disturbing manufacturing trends. 

For example, the establishment of industry-led public-private consortia is exactly what ‘‘the doctor ordered’’ to address the pre-competitive challenges faced by U.S. companies. The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or AMTech, program included in 

the budget request will tackle technical issues that are prohibiting 

the growth of advanced manufacturing here at home, and will provide a foundation for new and existing companies to flourish, producing high-quality, well-paying jobs which are key to the growth 

of our economy and the middle class. 

I am interested in learning more today about the Administration’s proposal to launch a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. From what I gather, this proposal is based in part on a 

successful model, the Fraunhofer Institutes—we will have a chance 
13 

to talk about later—implemented in Germany with the support of 

its government. This is certainly a promising model that I believe 

we should fully explore in this country and I am eager to hear 

whether the network is in fact intended to spur these sorts of public-private research partnerships. Again, another example of the 

international community investing in advanced manufacturing and 

the United States taking a back seat. We hope to change that today 

and hope to do that with the President’s budget. 

And so whether you agree with it or not, the truth is, most of 

our competitors are putting significant and targeted resources towards helping businesses, small and large, accelerate commercialization of innovative technologies. The current budget request 

finalizes the termination of the Technology Innovation Program, or 

TIP. And it marks the first time in years that NIST—in 25 years 

in fact that NIST lacks a mechanism to provide competitive grants 

to U.S. companies to accelerate the development of promising technologies that hold the potential for significant commercial payoff 

and widespread benefits for the United States. I am troubled by 

the void that will be left by the termination of TIP and am interested in exploring with the Chairman and Under Secretary Gallagher the possibility of establishing a new program, or even reconstituting a previous one, at NIST for this important purpose. 

I am also interested in learning more today about how the current budget request will advance NIST’s efforts in forensic science. 

As you know, the National Research Council released a report in 

2009 that highlighted the fragmented nature of forensic science in 

the United States, and expressed concern over the lack of a rigorous scientific base for the field. The NRC also emphasized the 

role NIST can and should play in addressing the identified weaknesses, and I applaud the strategic initiative outlined in NIST’s 

budget proposal and look forward to hearing how this initiative will 

strengthen forensic science. 

We could go on, but Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again 

for holding the hearing and I look forward to working with you and 

our colleagues to ensure that NIST has the resources it needs to 

fulfill its critical role in promoting innovation, commercialization 

and business growth, and with that, I yield the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONNA EDWARDS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

Thank you, Chairman Quayle. And thank you for holding today’s hearing to examine the Administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. I’d like to thank Dr. Gallagher for appearing before 

us this morning and for his leadership at NIST. 

Although NIST is a relatively small agency, it is an extremely important player 

in federal efforts to spur innovation and economic prosperity in this country. For 

more than 100 years, NIST has supported the competitiveness of U.S. industry by 

advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. NIST’s broad and deep 

technical expertise, as well as its ability to serve as a bridge to U.S. businesses, is 

unparalleled. 

I am pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request draws on the 

strengths of NIST and gives the agency a prominent role in the Administration’s 

strategy to revitalize American manufacturing. 
14 

Since 2000, the U.S. has lost over 650,000 high-tech manufacturing jobs. Our 

trade deficit in advanced technology products is growing and China is now the 

world’s biggest exporter of high-technology goods. The truth is that our position as 

the global leader in innovation and technology is being threatened as developing 

countries build up their capabilities to become not only the technology assembly 

line, but also the creator of new and innovative technologies. 

The Administration’s budget proposal includes a number of initiatives that can reverse these disturbing manufacturing trends. For instance, the establishment of industry-led public-private consortia is exactly ‘‘what the doctor ordered’’ to address 

precompetitive challenges faced by U.S. companies. The Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia, or AMTech, program included in the budget request will tackle technical issues that are prohibiting the growth of advanced manufacturing here 

at home, and will provide a foundation for new and existing companies to flourish— 

producing high-quality, well paying jobs which are key to the growth of our economy 

and the middle class. 

I’m interested in learning more today about the Administration’s proposal to 

launch a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. 

From what I gather, this proposal is based in part on a successful model—the 

Fraunhofer Institutes—implemented in Germany with the support of its government. This is certainly a promising model that I believe we should fully explore in 

this country and I’m eager to hear whether the Network is in fact intended to spur 

these sorts of public-private research partnerships. 

Whether you agree with it or not, the truth is most of our competitors are putting 

significant and targeted resources towards helping businesses—small and large—accelerate the commercialization of innovative technologies. The current budget request finalizes the termination of the Technology Innovation Program, or TIP. And 

it marks the first time in 25 years that NIST lacks a mechanism to provide competitive grants to U.S. companies to accelerate the development of promising technologies that hold the potential for significant commercial payoff and widespread 

benefits for the U.S. I’m troubled by the void that will be left by the termination 

of TIP and am interested in exploring with the Chairman and Under Secretary Gallagher the possibility of establishing a new program, or even reconstituting a previous one, at NIST for this important purpose. 

I’m also interested in learning more today about how the current budget request 

will advance NIST’s efforts in forensic science. As you know, the National Research 

Council released a report in 2009 that highlighted the fragmented nature of forensic 

science in the U.S., and expressed concern over the lack of a rigorous scientific base 

for the field. The NRC also emphasized the role NIST can and should play in addressing the identified weaknesses. I applaud the strategic initiative outlined in 

NIST’s budget proposal and look forward to hearing how this initiative will 

strengthen forensic science in the U.S. 

I am equally interested in NIST’s cybersecurity activities and am interested in 

hearing more about how the FY 2013 request will help ensure that NIST continues 

to play an important role in the Federal Government’s cybersecurity efforts, particularly as it relates to the development of cybersecurity standards and guidelines for 

Federal agencies and U.S. industry. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

working with you and our colleagues to ensure that NIST has the resources it needs 

to fulfill its critical role in promoting innovation, commercialization, and business 

growth. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

If there are members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness. Our witness 

is Dr. Patrick Gallagher, the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Standards and Technology and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Thanks again to our witness for 

being here this morning. 

As our witness should know, spoken testimony is limited to five 

minutes. After presenting your spoken testimony, members of the 

Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. I now recognize our witness, Dr. Patrick Gallagher, for five minutes. 
15 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK GALLAGHER, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Edwards. I want to thank you both for your kind 

words and recognition of my leadership and the work of NIST. I 

want to recognize and thank all the members of the Subcommittee 

for your support to NIST and for the opportunity to testify today 

about the Administration’s fiscal year 2013 request for NIST. 

This year’s request can be summarized in two words: advanced 

manufacturing. The President’s request reflects his strong commitment to accelerate the pace of innovation and to better enable the 

transfer of technologies and products to help American manufacturers to, as Secretary Bryson put it, make it here and sell it everywhere. 

NIST is an agency whose mission, rooted in the Constitution is 

specifically charged with supporting U.S. industry, especially the 

manufacturing sector, by advancing measurement science, supporting standards and testing, and accelerating commercialization 

of new technologies. 

This year’s request builds on our past successes and on your past 

support of our mission. The overall discretionary request for fiscal 

2013 is $857 million. This is an increase of $106 from the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted level. And to just focus on the significance of 

manufacturing to our request, over $156 million in total is dedicated to areas specifically part of advanced manufacturing-related 

programs and activities. 

NIST’s discretionary budget contains three accounts, and let me 

briefly summarize them. The request for our laboratory programs, 

which is the largest program at NIST, is $648 million. This is an 

increase of $81 million. Over half of that proposed increased is focused specifically on advanced manufacturing. The remaining increase includes targeted areas of research in advanced communications, forensics, disaster resilience, and the National Strategy for 

Trusted Identifies in Cyberspace, or NSTIC, and for the establishment of Centers of Excellence to accelerate innovation through 

knowledge transfer and collaboration. 

The request for the Industries Technology Services account is 

$149 million. This is an increase of $20 million over fiscal year 

2012. Within that account is a request for $128 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program and $21 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or 

AMTech. AMTech will support R&D in advanced manufacturing 

and strengthen long-term U.S. leadership in critical and emerging 

technologies. 

Our Construction of Research Facilities request is $60 million. 

This is an increase of nearly $5 million. The CRF account funds 

construction and facility maintenance and operations activities on 

both of our campuses. This request includes funds for the renovation of the 60-year-old Building 1 in Boulder, Colorado, which is 

completely inadequate and cannot support our scientific mission at 

this time. 
16 

The request also proposes two mandatory accounts. The first one would provide $300 million to address and support critical barriers 

to innovation and accelerate the delivery of new products and services for public safety communication. This program was included in 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, which 

was recently signed into law. 

The second account would catalyze a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The President views this one-time investment of $1 billion as crucial to revitalizing U.S. manufacturing. 

This program would be in direct collaboration between NIST, the 

National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Energy, and we look forward to working with this 

Committee on the necessary legislation to establish this program. 

Mr. Chairman, NIST’s mission is to work with industry to benefit 

the competitiveness of American industry, and it could not be more 

relevant to today’s challenges. This concludes my testimony, and I 

am looking forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:] 
17 

Testimony of 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Ph.D. 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology 

United States Department of Commerce 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 

for the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

March 6, 2012 
18 

Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to present the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 

budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Tcdmology (NIST). This budget 

ref1ects the important role that NIST plays as part of President Obama's "Blueprint for an 

America Built to Last." As the President said recently in Annadale, Virginia, "[AnJ economy 

built to last demands thai we keep doing evel:vthing we canto . ... keep strengthening American 

manufacturing. " Secretary ofConunerce John Bryson amplifies that message when he tells us 

that in order to create good paying jobs, we need to help more American businesses "build it 

here and sell it everywhere." The proposed FY 2013 budget reflects NISI's critical role in the 

Administration's efforts to strengthen manufacturing through critical investments in key research 

and development areas. 

The NIST mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness through 

measurement science, standards and technology. This mission is very well-aligned with the 

priority goals as articulated by the President. The FY 2013 budget for NIST reflects that 

alignment. 

The NIST budget is comprised of three discretionary spending accounts and two new proposed 

mandatory spending accounts. 

Mr. Chairman, the President's discretionary funding request for NIST is $857 million (excluding 

transfers), an increase 0[$106.2 million over FY 2012. More than half of the proposed increased 

funding would be focused on advanced manufacturing research both at NIST laboratories and 

through a new industry-led consortia program. This budget was carefully crafted to address 

pressing needs for standards and measurement work in emerging technology areas and provide 

seed funding to encourage industry and academia to come together to address common 

teclmology problems too large for individual institutions to tackle. Moreover, this budget is 

consistent with the President's Plan for Science and Innovation and the goals of the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act 0[2010, both of which call for significant increases in basic 

federal R&D funding to make America more competitive. 

For the NIST Scientific Research and Technical Services (STRS) account, which funds our 

laboratory programs, the budget requests $648 million to accelerate the development of 

standards, technology, and measurement science in areas as diverse as advanced manufacturing 

technologies, cybcrsccurity, t()rensics and interoperable communications. The request reflects a 

net increase of'$81 million over the FY 2012 level. The request will help ensure that NIST 

research laboratories, facilities and service programs continue to work at the cutting edge of 

science to ensure that U.S. industry, as well as the broader science and engineering communities, 

have the measurements, data and technologies they need to further innovation and industrial 

competitiveness. 

For the NIST Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account, the budget requests $149 million, an 

increase of$21 million over the FY12 enacted level. The account includes NIST's external 

programs: the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program; and the proposed 

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) program. 

2 
19 

The request includes $128 million li)r the MEP program; a slight decrease from the FY 2012 

enacted level. The MEP is a Federal-state-industry partnership that provides U.S. manufacturers 

with access to technologies, resources and industry experts. MEP's more than 1.400 field staff 

works with small- and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers to help them create and retain jobs, save 

time and focus on the bottom line to help increase profits. The request also includes $21 million 

for the AMTech program. This new program will establish industry-led consortia to identify and 

prioritize research projects supporting long-term industrial research needs. AMTech creates the 

incentive for manufacturers to share financial and scientific resources with universities, state and 

local governments and non-profits. The proposed program is a critical component of the 

Administration's emphasis on advanced manufacturing as a way to accelerate innovation and 

create high-quality U.S. jobs. 

The budget requests $60 million for the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) account; a $4 

million increase over the FY 2012 enacted leveL Within that request are two components: $48.2 

million for NISI's routine maintenance and repair budget; and $11.8 million for the Boulder 

Laboratories Building I Wing 6 Renovation. Critically needed renovations to the 60-year-old 

Building I in Boulder began in FY 2010. The building houses the majority of research and 

measurement laboratories on the NIST-Boulder campus, supporting discovery and development 

in a number of critical areas, including public safety communications and telecommunications, 

precision timing, hydrogen energy sources, electromagnetic interference testing, and quantum 

computing. 

The Administration's budget request lor NIST also includes two mandatory funding initiatives. 

The first mandatory proposal is directed toward Public Safety Communications research and was 

included in the recently passed Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 20 12 (PL 112-

96). This legislation makes funds available rrom the Public Safety Trust Fund to NIST to help 

research and develop cutting-edge, interoperable wireless technologies for public safety usersthe need tc)r which was clearly demonstrated on September II, 2001, during the rescue efTorts at 

the World Trade Center towers. I will discuss this program in further detail later in my 

testimony. 

Finally, as part of the Administration's eftorts to revitalize manufacturing, the President's budget 

proposes a $1 billion mandatory account to establish a National Network for Manulacturing 

Innovation (NNMI), which aims to promote the development of manufacturing technologies with 

broad applications through collaboration between NIST, the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation. 

Mr. Chairman, also included in this request arc scientific and programmatic initiatives that are 

tied to the overarching themes of this budget: Advanced Manufacturing, Cybersecurity, 

Advanced Communications, Forensic Science, Disaster Resilience and Technology Transfer. 

These themes directly rclate to the President's Blueprint Jor an America Built to Last - a 

blueprint for an economy built on American manulacturing. 

3 
20 

Advanced Manufacturing - Building Pro5perity Through Innovation 

Manufacturing is critical to the U.S. economy. As President Obama said in his 2012 State of the 

Union address, "We have a huge opportunity. atfIJis moment, to bring manulacturing back. But 

we have to seize it." "The blueprintfor an economy build to last:' he said, "hegins with 

American mam!lacturing." By itself, if the U.S. manufacturing sector were a country, it would 

be the 9th largest economy in the world. I Over 11 million Americans have manufacturing jobs. 2 

Many of these are high-quality jobs] Total hourly compensation in the manufacturing sector is, 

on average, 21% higher than that in the services sector.4 After ranking as the world's largest 

manufacturer for more than a century, the U.S. is facing some stiff competition and has lost 

ground to China on total volume of its manufacturing output. It has also slipped below 

Germany, Korca, and Japan in the rankings of research and development manufacturing 

intensity, a critical indicator of future job-creating innovation.' 

However, during the past two years of the Obama Administration, we have begun to see positive 

signs in American manufacturing: the manuiacturing sector adding more than 400,000 jobs 

since December 2009; and more companies "in-sourcing" - bringing jobs back and making 

additional investments in the United States. We are seeing. for the first time since the late 1990s, 

an increase in manufacturing jobs 6 

Even so. today's challenges require stepping up e1Torts to enhance and strengthen the Nation's 

underlying technical injiastnIcture. which is integral to Ollr innovation and advanced 

manufacturing capabilities. Thus, the NIST FY2013 budget lays Ollt a robust set of initiatives 

that cover the range ofthe manufacturing lifecycle spectrum to reduce the gap between cuttingedge science and development and the deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies. 

Providing the measurement tools and other essential technical assistance that U.S. manufacturers 

need to invent, innovate, and produce-more rapidly and more efficiently than their 

competitors-is a top NIST priority. 

To reap the economic benefits of our ability to innovate, our Nation's manufacturing sector must 

be able to renew itself by adopting new technology and developing new markets. The Nation's 

manufacturers must respond quickly and effectively to an ever-changing mix ofrequirements, 

risks, and opportunities, from new regulations to rising energy costs to emerging techno logies 

and markets. The revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing base is critical to driving innovation 

and job creation in the future, and will playa major role in building an economy that can help 

raise the standard of living tor all Americans. 7 

The recently released National Strategic Planlor Advanced Manulacturing. a robust interagency 

etIort led by the Of1ice ofScienee and Technology Policy in which NIST played a significant 

role, articulated a number of ways in which we as a Nation can accelerate innovation to benefit 

~ Bureau offconomic Analy51~ Manufacturing. Industry Data Table~ 2010 

Bureau ofLahor Statistics, 2011 Employer ('mlsfh,. Employer! Compt!IH(lIWn. Table 6 

:> NSTC A Xaliona/ Strategic Planfor Adranct'd MGllI(factunng F(':hruary 20 J 2: pg 2. 

4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20111::mployer Costs/or Employee Compens"tlon Table o. 

:, NSTC A ,\'aOona/ Sf/"aIeglC i'lan/or Adl'anced ManI(/iJcful"mg february 2012 

Oven'lew to the Nat!(lna! S-:iellce Board"s S(iL'I1Ct! and Lngmeenng IndIcators 201:!: pp 16-20 

4 
21 

advanced manufacturing and bridge the gaps in the present U.S. innovation system. particularly 

the gap between research and development (R&D) activities and the deployment of technological 

innovations in domestic production of goods. The plan lays out a robust innovation policy that 

would help to close these gaps and address the fulllifecycle of technology. 

The President's FY 2013 budget contains several initiatives focused on overcoming 

manufacturing-related barriers to innovation. We work very closely with numerous other 

Federal agencies in these efforts. including the Department of Energy's Advanced 

Manufacturing Office, the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, and others. 

Measurement Science for Advanced Manufacturing 

The largest overarching NIST initiative is Measurement Science lor Advanced Manufacturing. 

This $45 million dollar initiative would fund five specific focus areas and is part of a $135 

million overall investment in manufacturing research at NIST. The focus under this initiative is 

under 5 specific areas. 

• Metrology lnti'astruc/ure and Standards to Support Biomanllf(lctllring 

Under this $10 million initiative, working closely with industry. the Food and Drug 

Administration, and standards organizations, NIST will develop the measurement infrastructure 

needed to gain detailed understanding of biomanufacturing processes and design methods that 

yield higher-quality therapeutic products. Continuous improvements will enable manufacturing 

processes that are sufficiently adaptable to accommodate manufacture of next-generation 

treatments. 

• Measurement Science and Standards to Support Nanol11anufacturing 

NIST will invest $10 million to develop measurement methods to help companies overcome 

technical barriers to cost effective, high-volume manufacturing of materials. devices, and 

systems that exploit the exceptional properties exhibited at the nanoscale. This initiative 

includes $2 million for nanotechnology related environmental, health, and safety research to 

address potential risks of nanotechnology based products. 

• Measl{rement Science and Siandards /0 Speed Derelopment and Industrial Applications o( 

Advanced Materials 

This $10 million effort will accelerate NIST efforts in support ofthe national Materials Genome 

Initiative, an interagency program with the goal of significantly reducing the time from discovery 

to commercial deployment of new materials. NIST will focus on standard reference databases, 

data assessment and validation. standards development and implementation, and modeling and 

simulation tools. 

• Measuremenl Science and Standardl' 10 Support Smart Afal1utacturing 

$10 million is slated to support smart manufacturing to exploit advances in sensors, data 

anaiy1ics, modeling, and simulation and integrate these technologies to improve manufacturing 

performance at all levels, from equipment to factory to supply chain. NIST will develop 

measurement capabilities and standards for automated in-process quality monitoring and control 

5 
22 

for factory-level production systems. NIST will also build a testbed to help industry, university, 

and government collaborators develop an open standards platform for facilitating the 

simultaneous engineering of the physical and virtual components ofmanutacturing systems. 

• iVIST A1anufac/uring Fellowships Program 

The Manufacturing Fellowships program will be funded at $5 million to provide opportunities 

for engineers and scientists to work with NIST statTon the measurement and standards required 

to create cutting-edge tools for manufacturers. Fellowships will be available to qualified 

researchers fTom companies and non-profit organizations, as well as to recent recipients of 

bachelor's or master's degrees in relevant fields. 

While the previous programs are supported under the STRS budget, the President's budget 

strongly supports manufacturing through the NIST Industrial Technology Services (ITS) 

programs as well, such as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership or MEP, and the 

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program, or AMTech. 

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia Program 

The proposed $21 million AMTech program will provide cost-shared nmding to industry-led 

consortia that are focused on developing advanced technologies to address major technical 

problems that inhibit development and widespread adoption of advanced manufacturing 

capabilities in the United States. By convening key organizations across the entire innovation 

lifecycle, AMTech will help to create the infrastructure necessary for more efficient technology 

transfer. These consortia will identify and conduct precompetitive research to address longrange basic R&D relevant to manufacturing, currently a weak link in the U.S. innovation 

ecosystem. AMTech will support high-value-added, knowledge-intensive U.S.-made products 

that respond to new market opportunities and generate high-skilled manufacturing jobs, discover 

cost-effective methods for making new products that safely exploit nanoscale materials; and 

develop new types of manufacturing tools and processes that allow cost-effective small batch 

production and create new market opportunities for small and mid-sized manufacturers. 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 

The MEP, a federal-state partnership, has a national network ofMEP Centers located in all 50 

states and Puerto Rico. There are over 1,400 technical experts associated with the Centers 

helping small- and medium-sized manufacturers navigate economic and business challenges and 

cOl1l1ecting them to public and private resources essential for increased competitiveness and 

profitability. 

Focused on U.S. based manufacturers for the past 20 years, MEP continues to modify its suite of 

services to better scrve America's manufacturing base. In support of the President's 

manutacturing strategy, MEP has recently developed a Supplier Scouting Program to support the 

current needs of the manufacturers they serve across the U.S. The Supplier Scouting Program is 

designed to help identify potential business opportunities for small U.S. manufacturers with 

specific capabilities and capacities that could be utilized by a larger domestic manufacturer. In 

response to the Buy America requirements of federal agencies and the supplier requirements of 

6 
23 

the large manufacturers, MEP leverages its vast knowledge oflocal manufacturer capabilities to 

identify and pre-qualify supplier capabilities and capacities, and provide assistance to suppliers 

as needed. To further support this goal, MEP launched a new, searchable, web-based resource -

the National Innovation Marketplace - to assist manufacturers in using emerging technologies 

and finding market opportunities or to move ideas from research in the labs to products. The site 

will enable businesses and entrepreneurs across the country to easily ident ify and contact more 

than 2,000 public-private organizations and initiatives designed to assist them, 

In addition to focusing on manufacturing, the NIST FY20J3 budget request also outlines 

investments that: broaden NIST's collaborations in measurement science with the academia and 

industry; strengthen and expand programs focused on emerging challenges in secure 

identification, cybersecurity, and advanced communications technologies; address measurement 

challenges in forensic science; and provide the measurements and standards to strengthen 

America's Physical Infrastructure. 

NIST Centers of Excellence 

The proposed $20 million will lund the NIST Centers of Excellence. The NIST Centers of 

Excellence support collaboration on thc front end ofthe manufacturing spectrum that builds 

upon a legacy of successful consortia with universities. With the requested funding, NIST will 

provide grants to establish four competitively selected Centers of Excellence in measurement 

science areas defined by KIST. The grants to multi- or single-university centers are envisioncd 

to be for multiple ycars, contingent upon available resources. Each Ccnter of Excellence will 

provide an interdisciplinary environment where NIST, academic. and industry researchers would 

collaborate on basic and applied research focused on innovations in measuremcnt science and 

new technology developmcnt. 

NIST's mission to use measurement science and services to support innovation and industrial 

competitiveness covers an incredible breadth of topics-from pharmaceuticals based on 

nanotechnology to standards and fire codes tlX skyscrapers to quantum computers that usc 

individual atoms to store information. To accomplish this mission efficiently, NIST must 

continually scan the horizons for emerging technologies and maintain excellent ties with both the 

industry and academic community. Currently, NIST has collaborative research centers-JILA 

with the University of Colorado, and the Joint Quantum Institute, and thc Institute lor Bioscience 

and Biotechnology Research with the University of Maryland. These centers have demonstrated 

how participation by NIST experts at multiple venues can leverage federal investments and 

enhance the value of public funding, Cutting-edge rcsearch requires detailed, one-to-one 

exchange of technical know-how and often familiarity with one-of-a-kind instrumentation. To 

ensure that NIST's work intersects with the nation's most productive regional innovation centers. 

it needs "on the ground" resources ncar or at those centers. 

In addition to making significant discretionary investments to strengthen U.S. manufacturing, the 

Budget proposes a new, major initiative to catalyze a National Network tor Manufacturing 

Innovation that will support the development of manufacturing technologies with broad 

applications through one-time mandatory funding of $1 billion. The President views this one7 
24 

time investment as crucial to rcvitalizing U.S. manufacturing. We look forward to working with 

the Congress on legislation to support this initiative. 

Measurement Science and Standards in Support of Forensic Science 

NIST has a long history of collaboration in the area of Forensic Science. This $5 million 

proposed initiative will enable NIST to create a strategic program to broadly address the most 

critical issues in forcnsic science today, such as new reference methods and technologies for 

understanding crime scenes and identifying criminals, including the uncertainty and standards 

associated with those techniques. A major outcome of this initiative will be to strengthen the 

utility and reliability of forensic evidence in the courtroom. This work also has the potential lor 

significant cost savings for the U.S. justice system by reducing the number of mistrials or retrials 

related to questions about forensic analysis. One economic analysis of cost savings from 

forensic DNA testing alone estimated a cost savings of$35 for every dollar invested. 

Public trust in the justice system relies on the validity and certainty of evidence presented to the 

courts. Increasingly that evidence is gathered and analyzed with innovative forensic 

technologies. Working with the National Institute of Justice and other agencies, NIST has 

measurement scicnce research under way in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

detection and analysis; fire and explosives analysis; gunshot residue, latent fingerprints, and 

many other areas. NISI's work in DNA profiling and testing, for example, helped establish the 

methods now used by all crime laboratories to match individuals to evidence samples. NIST 

technical expertise would be brought to bear in other areas of forensic science to the benefit of 

all. 

Measurement and Standards for Disaster Resilience and Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction 

A $5 million initiative will support the measurement and standards for disaster resilience and 

reduce the risk fTom natural hazards. With a large percentage of the nation's buildings and 

infrastructure clustered in disaster-prone regions, U.S. communities can and do suffer 

catastrophic losscs from extreme evcnts such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, 

and Hooding. Despite significant progress in disaster related science and technology, natural and 

technological disasters in the United States are responsible for an estimated $55 billion in costs 

in 2011 terms oflives lost, disruption of commcrcial and tlnancialnetworks, properties 

destroyed, as well as the cost of mobilizing emergency response personnel and equipment. 8 In 

201 L three major incidents: the Joplin, Missouri, tornado; Hurricane Irene; and the Texas 

wildfires alone resulted in over 200 deaths and well over $10 billion in damages. Critically 

needed metrics, tools, and standards to ensure conUTIunity-level resilience currently do not exist. 

These are needed to enable communities to minimize the impact of such disasters and to recover 

rapidly irom them. 

NIST has significant statutory responsibilities in this area, including the National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of2004 (PL 108-360); the National 

R http://Vti\vw.ncdc.noaa.goY/oaireports/bi!1ionz.html 

8 
25 

Construction Safety Team Act (PL 107-231); the National Windstonn Impact Reduction Act of 

2004 (PL 108-360); and the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-498). 

The requested initiative will fund the development of a public-private partnership program 

strategy that will work with stakeho Ider interests in all hazard areas to develop and adopt a 

national resilience framework and associated resilience models, standards, and policies. 

Additionally, the funding will help address the R&D gaps to realize the full potential of national 

resilience. This initiative is locused directly on finding solutions to the six Grand Challenges 

identified by the President's National Science and Technology Council in June 2005. 

Measurement Science to Support Advanced Communications Networks 

This $10 million initiative will support the technological infrastructure. including standards, 

underpilming broadband communications networks, which have become as essential to today's 

economy as the electrical power grid was to the Industrial Revolution. To compete effectively in 

this global business environment, cOIID11Unities and companies will need reliable. secure access 

to huge amounts of data, available anytime. anywhere. However. the U.S. currently lacks the 

technology to ensure adequate capacity to achieve a large-scale network capable of this vision. 

There has been a 5.000 percent growth in demand for wireless internet data in the last three 

years. Currently, 3 percent of wireless smart-phone customers use up to 40 percent of the total 

available cell-phone bandwidth causing large bottlenecks in mobile broadband access. Services 

are striving to address the rapid increase in demand, but new technologies and approaches are 

needed. Incrcmental advances in broadband technology or network capacity will not be 

sufficient to meet the future needs of a hyper-connected world. 

This initiative will help support continued operations of the 700 MHz Public Safety Broadband 

Demonstration (PSBD) Network and to make modilications to allow additional use as a platform 

lor addressing intcroperability and pcrfonnance questions on non-PS next generation 

communications technologies. It will address three key areas to enable significant innovation in 

communications in both the commercial and public safety sectors. Benefits expected from 

funding of the advanced communications initiative include thc development ofa U.S. broadband 

network with greatly expanded capacity that requires only a marginal increase in capital and 

operating expenditures. In addition, it is expected to establish a testbed and build collaboration 

with the telecommunications industry to help lay the groundwork for an interoperable public 

salety communications network that seamlessly delivers voice, data, and video to first responders 

and other emergency personnel through whatever communication avenues are available. 

Public Safety Communications Research and Development 

In addition to the Advanced Communications initiative. the Middle Class Tax Reliefand Job 

Creation Act 0[2012 (PL 112-96) created a mandatory account to help research and develop 

cutting-edge technologies tor public safety users. The September II th attacks on the World 

Trade Center highlighted the inadequacies of our conullunications networks. more than 10 years 

after September 11 tho the United States still lacks a wireless interoperable network capable of 

linking public safety organizations and workers. First responders and other emergency personnel 

nationwide currently use a patchwork of incompatible technologies and frequency bands. NIST 

9 
26 

will usc the funds to \vork with industry and public safety organizations on research and 

development of new standards, technologies, and applications that advance public safety 

communications. This initiative will establish a competitive grants program designed to support 

research, development, and demonstration projects. The overriding objective is to build a 

broadband system to allow first responders and other public safety personnel anywhere in the 

nation to send and receive data, voice, and other communications to work together effectively in 

response to crises. 

National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace 

The Budget provides an increase of$8 million to the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in 

Cyberspace (NSTIC) which builds upon FY 2012 funding of$16.5 million. The initiative 

envisions an online environment-the "Identity Ecosystem"'-that improves on the use of 

passwords and usernames, and allows individuals and organizations to better trust one another, 

with minimized disclosure of personal information. The Identity Ecosystem is a user-centric 

online environment, a set of technologies, policies. and agreed upon standards, that securely 

support transactions ranging from anonymous to fully authenticated and from low to high value. 

It would include a vibrant marketplace that allows people to choose among multiple identity 

providers--·both private and public-that would issue trusted credentials that prove identity. 

Key attributes of the Identity Ecosystem include privacy. convenience, efficiency. ease-of-use. 

security. confidence. innovation. and choice. Creating this Identity Ecosystem will require input 

from the private sector, advocacy groups, public sector agencies and others. The request 

continues and expands existing eHorts to coordinate federal activities needed to implement 

NSTIC. 

Specifically, the FY 2013 request funds competitively selected pilot project grants that will 

enable the private sector to work with state. local, and regional governments to improve 

acceptance ofldentity Ecosystem components. The selected NSTIC pilot programs will 

demonstrate innovative frameworks that can provide a foundation for more trusted online 

transactions and tackle barriers that have, to date. impeded the Identity Ecosystem from being 

fully realized. This initiative is expected to lead to the emergence of privacy-enhancing, trusted 

authentication solutions that lead to better protections against cybercrime; improved privacy and 

protection of data; improved security and interoperability of credentials: improve the resilience 

of data breach recovery; and a self-sustaining, private-sector-Icd Identity Ecosystem (by 2015) 

and its Steering Group that brings together all stakeho lders-the private sector, advocacy groups, 

and public-sector agencies-to address authentication challenges and allow continued expansion 

of the nation's online economy. 

Boulder Laboratories Building 1 Renovation 

NIST is requesting $1 1.8 million in FY13 for the Construction of Research Facilities account for 

the renovation of the Boulder (CO) labs - Building 1. This initiative is part ofa comprehensive, 

multi-year plan for the phased construction of new space and renovation of Building I. As you 

may know, Building 1 is nearly 60 years old and houses the majority ofNIST research and 

measurement programs on the agency's Boulder site. However, the aging building is simply 

inadequate tor the kind of high-precision measurement work conducted there. 

10 
27 

The poor condition of Building I causes an estimated loss in productivity of at least 20 percent 

due to the need to repeat experiments to produce quality research results and compensate for 

poor controls in other ways. Even with the completion of Boulder's Precision Measurement 

Laboratory later this year, many NIST research projects requiring tight environmental controls 

will need to continue in Building 1. Renovation of Wing 6, the portion of Building I addressed 

with this initiative, includes a number of laboratories engaged in essential research and technical 

services such as calibrations used for radio, microwave, and optical frequency equipment in the 

telecommunications, medical, and scientific fields. 

Beyond large research inefficiencies, current laboratory conditions in yet to be renovated wings 

of Building 1 also pose safety concerns. Ventilation systems do not supply adequate fresh air for 

modern laboratory work, electrical systems contain asbestos and do not meet current codes, 

lighting is poor, and most of the building is not protected by a fire sprinkler system contributing 

to potential life and occupational safety hazards. The current Facility Condition Index for 

Building I is "poor." Extensive upgrades are essential to ensure that the Institute can perform 

the exacting, precision measurements required to meet its mission. 

Summary 

The FY 2013 NIST budget request reflects the Administration's recognition of the important role 

that NIST plays in innovation, as well as the impact that the research and services NIST provides 

can have on moving the Nation forward by laying the foundation for long-term job creation and 

prosperity. 

More than half of the proposed increased funding in the NIST budget is focused on advanced 

manufacturing research at NIST laboratories and through new industry-led consortia programs. 

NIST will continue its mission to work with the private sector to ensure U.S. manufacturers have 

the research support they need to make the best products in the world and remain globally 

competitive. The NIST laboratory programs, along with its outreach efforts and standards 

development work, are dedicated to providing U.S. industry with the tools needed to innovate, 

compete and Dourish in today's fierce global economy. 

I look forward to working with you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, and would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

11 
28 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Dr. Gallagher. 

Now I just want to remind members that the Committee rules 

limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open 

the round of questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

I first want to—you know, at the end of your testimony, you said 

how NIST works well with industry, and you absolutely do and it 

is a great way to show how the regulatory body and also industry 

can actually work together to come up with the type of standards 

that will work for everybody, but I want to go to one of the mandatory programs that you were talking about, so the request proposed 

the creation of a mandatory $1 billion account to establish a multiagency National Network of Manufacturing Innovation, aimed at 

bridging the gap between lab and the market, and I am a little 

skeptical of the proposal just because if I understand, NIST would 

be charged with leading a program with a funding level that is 

greater than its total annual budget. We haven’t received any justification describing how this account may differ from the MEP or 

from AMTech program that the Administration is proposing. So 

could you please describe the reason for this new account and also 

what role NIST will play in managing it? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. The details of the National Network 

of Manufacturing Institutes has not been really announced except 

for this sort of framework that was included in the request. So I 

actually don’t have a lot of detail at this time to share with you, 

and I understand that it is going to be announced quite shortly. 

What I can tell you is that the program is specifically looking at 

stimulating private sector R&D, that advanced manufacturing, in 

particular, depends on a robust transfer of knowledge from research and development into industry, and the President laid out 

a goal when he first came into office that we had to increase the 

R&D intensity in the United States. Well, the majority of R&D in 

the United States is private sector, and so the focus here is really 

to create a venue where companies can pool resources and invest 

in that transfer of R&D to industry. 

With regards to the capacity within NIST, you are quite correct, 

it would be a sizable account. It is one-time funding so it would be 

presumably available over some period of time so on an annual 

basis, this probably is not exceeding what we would have managed 

in the past. It certainly would not exceed what we have dealt with 

successfully under the Recovery Act. So I think we are comfortable 

there, and I think also the fact that all of the science agencies are 

directly involved—Defense, Energy. NSF also brings a lot of capacity to the table. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Do you know or can you provide any insight 

into how the $1 billion number was chosen? I mean, we haven’t 

gotten any of the details and I look forward to seeing what the details are, but when you have a mandatory program that is outside 

of the Congressional appropriation process, immediately you kind 

of start to raise some alarm bells just because the mandatory 

spending that we are incurring year over year, obviously this is a 

one-time expenditure but those things are troubling to me, especially without any of the details coming out of the Administration. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. And it is hard for me to answer your question 

without any of those same details out there, and so I think we 
29 

would want to work closely with you as soon as those details are 

out. It would clearly require legislation to put into place, and I 

think the justification for the size is probably related to the intensity of effort, and again, I hope that is part of the announcements. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I was just also—is there any duplication 

amongst them—we are talking about manufacturer programs. Is 

there any duplication amongst NIST extramural programs—the 

MEP and the proposed AMTech? I just want to make sure that we 

aren’t overlapping in any areas that we don’t need to and making 

things as efficient as possible. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So as you can imagine, looking at program overlap and program efficiency, particularly across agencies, has been 

a high priority so there has been a lot of effort at the interagency 

level making sure these things are not in duplication. Certainly in 

the context of NIST, this has really no resemblance at all to MEP. 

MEP is a public-private partnership, that is true. It also includes 

partnerships directly with the states. But the purpose of that program is to support small and mid-sized businesses, existing manufacturers, to make them more competitive, accelerate their adoption of new technologies. The innovation network is really about 

supporting advanced R&D efforts by industry in a collaborative 

way. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, for five 

minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Dr. Gallagher, for your testimony. 

I am curious as to where you perceive the gaps that this budget 

attempts to fill with respect to pushing forward on the President’s 

agenda for more advanced manufacturing and developing that capacity that is coupled with an R&D capacity, and I referred in my 

opening statement to the Fraunhofer Institutes. I wonder if you 

could discuss in this budget the relationship between what you see, 

for example, in Germany and other countries doing and where we 

are trying to get and how that what is accomplished in the budget. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So I think that as soon as you look at advanced 

manufacturing, it is really the intersection between our capacity to 

innovate new technologies and our capacity to produce and sell 

them. That is really the nexus we are talking about. So the role 

of NIST in that space, we don’t produce anything so our real role 

is to work with industry to support what is really the advancement 

of the measurement capacity that enables those new technologies 

to move from a laboratory environment into the market—that is 

quite a transformation—and in some cases, the standards infrastructure or the standards framework that drives both those technologies and the markets that they go into. So the gaps that we 

are always looking at are the ones where there is an emerging 

technology arena, where the technology space is quite new and we 

want to advantage the producers in the United States to exploit 

those new technologies. So most of the increases that you see in 

our 2013 request are in emerging technology areas, looking at 

nanotechnology and biotechnology, looking at advanced smart manufacturing infrastructure that is needed. 
30 

With the context to Fraunhofers, I don’t want to speculate on 

how much the Fraunhofers specifically have been a model for what 

has been proposed but there has been a lot of interest in looking 

at the German model of partnership because what is intriguing 

about the institutes is that they combine very efficiently, apparently, a federal government, state government, and industry partnership, and I think that is probably intrinsic to almost anything 

we do in manufacturing because you are coupling this public sector-funded R&D enterprise with a robust private sector-funded and 

carried out commercial activity, and making sure we don’t have unnecessary barriers there is really the heart of the matter. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I want to go for a minute to the 

TIP program. The budget for fiscal year 2013 doesn’t include any 

funding for new projects within the Technology Innovation Program, which is aimed at speeding the development of industry-led 

high-risk transformative research. This decision comes on the heels 

of the previous budget, fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill, rather, 

that failed to provide any funding to TIP and forced NIST to begin 

the process of shutting the program down. I wonder if you could 

talk for a minute about the decision to end TIP and the void that 

is going to be left at NIST and the Federal Government as a whole 

by the termination of the program, and I wonder if you can relate 

that to the predecessor ATP program because I am looking at the 

Advanced Technology Program that existed and the number of successes that that program had, and can you relate the two and is 

this is an area that we need to reconsider? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So thank you. I think you are correct. The TIP 

program was defunded for 2012, and we are currently in the process of shutting that program down, and that is why it was not included in the 2013 request. The TIP program was a bipartisan effort that came out of the first America COMPETES Act. It specifically is looking at the gap of—it is in this valley of death space 

where it is even pre-angel and pre-VC where you are looking at 

taking a technological concept and turning into a pre-competitive 

technology. So while those private sector venture funds are really 

looking at the business risk, there is still this big problem of derisking the technology, getting it further down the path. This has 

been a very natural focus as soon as innovation became one of the 

main drivers for R&D investments: how do you efficiently move 

ideas further down the path so that they can be harvested and 

used and exploited commercially. 

I think the ATP program, which was envisioned to be a civilian 

DARPA looking at this high-risk, high-payoff space was very successful, in terms of the value it generated. I think TIP, while a 

much younger program, was showing similar signs of targeting new 

technologies exceptionally well, and I think really what happened 

was, the scale of the program combined with the fiscal environment 

and the need to make priorities, and that is really what happened 

with regard to TIP. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then would you say—I mean, would you care 

to characterize it? Are we really missing something here? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I believe everyone who is looking at this 

is quite concerned about the high friction between taking what we 

believe to be and what I believe to be the world’s best R&D enter-
31 

prise and making sure that we take every advantage to be able to 

leverage that in terms of creating new companies, developing new 

products and new technologies. And we have some points in that 

value stream, if you will, that are very inefficient, and these programs were specifically designed—these are proof-of-concept-type 

programs that are specifically designed to take a research result 

and demonstrate an actual concept, and you need that to be able 

to sort of begin the business process of developing a business. 

So this is not a secret. I think every S&T agency in the Federal 

Government is looking at this. States are looking at this. Other 

countries are looking at this and investing a lot of money in this 

area, and it is something that I would like to continue to discuss 

and work with this committee in terms of how we effectively operate, but it is very much in this public-private space, and I think 

we have to get it right. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, for five 

minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and Dr. Gallagher, the mission of NIST is to promote 

U.S. innovation and competitiveness by advancing measurement 

science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic 

security and improve our quality of life, and I think in this role, 

NIST has done a good job of coordinating the development and dissemination of codes and standards for use in the private sector. 

I have heard that the implementation of codes and standards 

varies across sectors and municipalities sometimes becoming a barrier for innovation. For example, I have heard that the innovation 

in the commercial kitchen equipment and laundry sector is not 

largely being adopted for a variety for reasons like the cost to purchase the new standards or lack of training in enforcing them and 

the level of efficiencies in those products really could offer enormous savings to taxpayers in the energy or water bills if they were 

able to use them. Does NIST also hear the same thing, and if so, 

could you elaborate? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes. Thank you very much. We hear this type 

of claim all the time. The United States has a very interesting, and 

as a result, very complex standards framework so standards are 

the realm of the private sector. We are probably one of the only industrialized countries in the world where the standard setting is 

not done by government mandate. So the role of NIST is to coordinate, to make sure the best science is there, to make sure there is 

a sound foundation for this, to bring stakeholders together. I think 

it is one of the reasons our track record for working with industry 

is what it is, that we are above the technical but a non-regulatory 

agency. We can bring folks together. 

And of course, you are right. Making a standard itself is not 

enough. It has to be put into meaningful practice at a broad 

enough cross-section of the market to make a difference, and that 

is often where I think the efforts flag. There is often competing interests. A standard is really a collective behavior on the part of 

often-competing interests and companies and so there is a lot of intrinsic tension in sort of pulling this together and yet the advantages, as you point out, can be considerable. 
32 

So we are always weighing what is our appropriate role. We 

don’t want to supplant the natural forces in the market to make 

choices about what the right solutions are but there is always— 

very often strong public interest as well and it may be things like 

a municipal interest to provide safe and effective infrastructure, 

promote energy or water efficiency and so forth. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. The release of the latest smart grid 

framework updates the previous version. Can you explain NIST’s 

role in the continued development of the smart grid and specifically 

what steps are being taken to ensure the safety and security of the 

smart grid technologies? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much. So the smart grid effort 

was just released last week, a version 2.0—we are adopting IT terminology here—of the standards framework or roadmap for smart 

grid. The NIST efforts really have been overtaken by what is really 

an all-industry effort now. The NIST Smart Grid Interoperability 

Panel has over 700 direct participants in the process, and they 

have made enormous progress in identifying a framework, a set of 

priorities, and in particular working on these new technologies. 

Very recently, I just received the first advisory committee report 

on smart grid. The keys I think moving forward are to develop testing and certification framework so very much to your first question 

so that the market understands that devices that are bought and 

put in practice in a grid or in a home or in a business are safe, 

interoperable and meet the requirements of this overall framework 

so that we turn what is really a disparate set of technologies into 

a functioning system, which was really the goal of the project. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. In one of the communities in my district, they are 

putting in the home devices and there is a lot of concern from some 

members of the community that it is not safe or that it is Big 

Brother watching over the use of water and all the other things 

that they will be doing. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, you are right, and with any IT-related 

technology, you immediately get into very directly now concerns of 

cybersecurity because now it is not just data but it is control of 

electricity—the stakes are quite high—and also privacy. I mean, 

both the power of this technology to give consumers the information to make choices has the other side which is, there is a lot of 

data about what consumers are using with this and we have to 

make sure that the consumer and the public utility interests 

move—and that is why that stakeholder group was so large in 

smart grid. That is very important. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Dr. Gallagher, as you can imagine, right now it is budget season 

in the United States Congress. Your President has sent over his 

budget. We are going through the budget process and, you know, 

everybody that is testifying, as you can imagine, understands the 

depth of our deficit problem, but what we still see is people coming 

over and saying, you know, we still need more money. And I no-
33 

ticed that the budget that we are looking at from NIST right now, 

basically you added some new programs but we really didn’t see 

very much reduction in the existing programs. If we are going to 

prioritize, you know, how we spend the American taxpayers’ 

money, by the way, and we don’t have all the money we are spending, we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we are spending, 

when does a department like yours start to take that leadership 

role and say you know what, we are going to have to go in and 

prioritize our programs, we may not be able to do all the things 

that we have been doing and so we need to prioritize that. Did you 

go through that process? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir, we did actually, and you are correct. In 

an environment like this, I would say that looking at internal efficiencies, looking at program efficiencies has been really unprecedented. I certainly appreciate the difficult task you have within 

Congress as this all comes up from different agencies to look at 

that. 

From the NIST side, what I can tell you is that we have in fact 

made probably the most significant priority decisions we have ever 

made. Two of our four programs were terminated and defunded. In 

fact, one was terminated and one was moved entirely to private 

sector funding. We have reduced administrative programs by over 

$12 million within NIST and are continuing to make further cuts. 

We have been reprogramming activities within the agency. And I 

think the NIST budget request—and you are quite correct, it is significantly up—was done in the context of an overall discretionary 

budget request that was flat. So what the Administration has tried 

to do is make relative priorities within the Budget Control Act 

number that put a premium on some of the high growth and I 

think the science and technology agencies have been the beneficiary of that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So when you say you went through a very rigorous process to evaluate and to prioritize, what measures are in 

place today to evaluate these programs? I mean, where can someone go and look at the documentation of the evaluations? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So NIST looks at—because of the heterogeneous 

nature of the NIST programs, we evaluate them differently. So in 

the case of some of the technology transfer programs we were talking earlier about, the TIP or Advanced Technology Program where 

NIST funded these high-risk payoffs, we actually have metrics that 

look directly at the value generation of the companies that were 

started, the new revenue, the new products, new services. I just 

looked at a review last week of the overall return on investment. 

For 36 companies we looked at it was something like 27 to 1. 

In the case of our Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 

where we are providing services to small and mid-sized manufacturers, we look directly at jobs saved or created, we look at new investments, and there is a whole set of metrics that support that. 

We would be happy to provide that. 

And the laboratory programs are a little bit more difficult because we are working farther upstream in the science and R&D 

side. We do a couple of things. One is to make sure that our work 

is meeting industry needs, so we do a lot of work looking at industry roadmaps and consortia and things of that type to make sure 
34 

that the NIST programs are there. We look at the things we sell. 

We actually sell primary calibration services and standard reference materials. We are looking very carefully at that. And lastly, 

we also do economic impact studies where we do selective retrospective studies to look at the value of those programs, and we 

would be happy to share all of that information with you. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Now, recently, I was at a firm that does a lot 

of high-tech work and actually participates in some of the programs 

that you are talking about, and I posed this question to them and 

I think it kind of caught them off guard, and the question that I 

asked them was what if instead of you leveraging federal dollars, 

because many of them, they put the public-private partnership, 

rather than leveraging a small amount of your money with a large 

amount of federal money, what if we changed the corporate tax 

structure in such a way that most of the money was your money, 

would you still be investing in those same kind of research, or because of the speculative level would you probably not. Because I 

think where we have to begin to look at it and when we prioritize 

how we spend American taxpayers’ money, we have to make sure 

that we are investing it in places where we get high degrees of return, and I submit to you that I think a lower corporate tax structure and allowing these companies to invest in the technology they 

think has longer prominence puts a little of a market perspective 

over research and development rather than trying to put together 

academic standards that these may or may not be. What would be 

your response to that? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. I would actually be in strong agreement. I think 

that in this space between the public sector and private sector, 

there is both pushes and pulls. I think that the market forces are 

incredibly important, possibly the most important. I think that is 

why the Administration has also supported the R&D tax credit and 

looking at corporate tax reforms for the very reasons you articulated. 

I also think that there is in some cases push from the technology 

sector. What is happening in the labs opens up opportunities that 

the market may not see or understand, and so in some cases we 

have to make sure that those are made visible to them as well, and 

you are highlighting really one of the most important areas, which 

is this intersection, how do we make this operate effectively without getting in the way of the market itself. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. 

I now recognized Mr. Hultgren for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple questions dealing more with manufacturing and 

jobs. The President stated in his State of the Union address, and 

I know you have reaffirmed in your testimony—I apologize, we had 

a couple other meetings going on at the same time—but I know you 

testified that one of the goals of this budget is to encourage hightech manufacturing in the United States. I certainly agree with 

this admirable goal and want to be fighting for that as well, but 

wonder if any amount of federal spending on science and technology will lead to more high-technology manufacturing without 

significant regulatory and tax reform. 
35 

So I wonder, can you provide us with your thoughts on this as 

well as how to create the optimal environment to support high-tech 

manufacturing and job creation here in the United States? Since 

the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates, do you 

believe we can attract business to the United States and keep them 

here without reducing regulation and reforming the tax code? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much. I certainly agree wholeheartedly that the set of conditions that a manufacturer will use 

to make a decision to site in the United States or to grow are more 

than just the R&D piece itself and it is going to be access to the 

workforce, it is going to look at the tax and cost structure, it is 

going to be a whole host of things, and I think the NIST manufacturing efforts should be viewed really in the fabric of a much larger 

effort that looks at how do we set the right macroeconomic conditions to support investments in advanced manufacturing and so 

forth. That includes trade, workforce, tax structure and so forth. 

But I think that in the context of R&D-intensive industries, ones 

that are really dependent on the flow of new ideas, there is an important touch point and I think that setting the right structure is 

really about making sure that we both facilitate the scale-up problem, taking an idea from a lab and how does it look in full scaleup and which is often a very deep measurement problem, and the 

other one is getting the market right, and you are exactly right. 

Many of these new emerging technologies are touching potential 

regulatory issues. So if you look at biotech where we are looking 

at the promise of an incredibly fast production of new biomaterials 

and new bioproducts, everyone concludes in the sector that I have 

talked to that we have to do something to make sure the regulatory 

process that protects the safety and efficacy of these materials 

keeps pace with that. And so what we are trying to do in NIST is 

to make sure that to the extent that this can be done through 

measurement, and the way to think of that is through quality control and quality assurance processes within industry itself, that we 

might be able to set from the technology side a better barrier so 

that we have smart and nimble regulation or requirements. 

One of the goals in standard setting is certainly if industry has 

broadly adopted a set of practices that are self-protective, that goes 

a long way to addressing the type of breakdowns or market breakdowns you would expect to look at and regulations, so that is true 

in our nanotechnology where we are looking at environment, safety 

and health issues, how do we measure with nanoparticles and also 

looking at biotech. 

Mr. HULTGREN. You touched on this a little bit but I guess just 

to delve in a little bit deeper, you talked about a number of distinct 

manufacturing initiatives and programs that NIST supports. I wonder if you could give your view more broadly of the direction of concern about U.S. manufacturing and making sure that it is growing, 

that that is a vital part of our economy, always has been and I believe needs to be going forward. I wonder if you could kind of give 

your thoughts of how you see that going in the near future and 

then longer term from the work that you have been doing at NIST 

but also just recognizing, do you feel like there is enough leadership coming from Washington, from agencies, from the Administration on manufacturing and how could the Administration coordi-
36 

nate manufacturing activities amongst the different federal agencies more effectively? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. I have to tell you that in my 18 years in the 

Federal Government, I have never been more optimistic about 

manufacturing than I am today. I think a tone has changed. I 

think for a while there was a feeling that it was just inevitable, 

that we didn’t have to worry about manufacturing, we could simply 

invent it here and it would go somewhere else and that was okay. 

I think that has changed. I think there has been recognition not 

just within the Federal Government but every discussion I have 

had in Congress has sort of reaffirmed this, and most importantly, 

the business community has really stepped up and begun to make 

the case very strongly that there is a deep interplay between our 

capacity as a country to innovate and our capacity as a country to 

produce a benefit from those innovations. 

And in fact, we probably should have known this because our 

competitors were doing this to us. They would start with the lowend manufacturing, which had no R&D, and work their way up the 

value chain until they were eventually building out R&D infrastructure and so that interplay was obvious to them, and I think 

we may have just taken it for granted since it had been such a core 

part of our strength for so many years. But I think that has really 

changed. I think the dynamic, as I said, is as robust as I have ever 

seen it. Now I think what we have to do is use that window of opportunity wisely and begin to craft some programs that work effectively because, as I said, the Federal Government doesn’t manufacture anything. What we want to do is make sure we are providing 

an environment that is conducive to that set of industries. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Just real quickly on that, is there some coordinated effort going on again amongst—I am glad to hear of your optimism from your perspective but is there some coordination as far 

as making sure that the effort really is being productive among different agencies from what you have seen? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes. The answer is again as much I have ever 

seen, so when Secretary Bryson was confirmed as Commerce Secretary, he was made a co-chair of a new office called the Office of 

Manufacturing Policy. This was a Cabinet-level group. In fact, I 

was at the first meeting. I had the privilege of sitting on the side 

wall while they met. And in fact, we have had vigorous and active 

participation by most of the Cabinet actually. It has been remarkable. The President himself was personally engaged in manufacturing. And at the working level in the advanced manufacturing 

space, NIST was named as the coordination agency, so we were 

given what was called a National Program Office to specifically 

provide the support for robust, all-of-government effort, and I 

would say routinely every day one door down from my office, Mike 

Molnar, who heads that office, is coordinating with Defense and 

Energy and NSF. So it is extremely active at this time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and I want to 

thank Dr. Gallagher for his valuable testimony and the members 

for their questions. 
37 

The members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for you, Dr. Gallagher, and we will ask you to respond to 

those in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and statements from members. 

The witness is excused. Thank you all for coming. The hearing 

is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
40 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary, Commerce for Standards 

and Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE BEN QUALYE (R-AZ) 

U.S. House Committee onScicnce, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

.An Overview (llhe Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal at {he National Institule (?fStandards and 

TechnoloKl' 

Tuesday. March 6. 2012 

1. The NIST budget requests $20 million to develop four Centers of Excellence. These 

Centers are intended to provide an interdisciplinary environment where industry and 

academia can collaborate on basic and applied research. What need are the Centers 

intcnded to address that is not currently being addressed by NIST? Could you please 

describe how the individual centers will be chosen and stl"Uctured, and what role NIST 

will play in determining the focus of research in each center? What is the lifespan of 

these Centers, for example do you expect to re-compete the Centers every few years? 

The National Institute of Standards and Tcchnology (NIST) Centers ofExcellencc are intended to 

support NIST's laboratory mission by providing a vehiclc for expanded collaboration in the areas of 

measurement sciencc. The Centers will leverage NIST measurement science expertise with assets and 

resources of industry and academia to synergistically advance the United States· manufacturing sectors· 

ability to address challenges critical to competitiveness. NIST will expand our strategic planning 

processes to identify emerging areas of national need in mcasurement sciences that would benefit from 

this model. 

Centers of Excellence will be selected through a competitive, mcrit-based process. NIST will 

continuously monitor the progress of the Centers of Excellence, and contemplates an in-depth review in 

the fourth ycar to determine the continuing need in the technical t()CUS areas and the success of the 

specific Centers. as well as potentially select new focus areas, at which time grants will again be 

competitively awarded. 

2. The FY13 Federal R&D budget details efforts to strengthen our Nation's 

competitiveness and long-run economic growth. What is NIST doing to measure and 

evaluate the economic impacts of its basic research funding? What methods can the 

federal government use to prioritize funding areas of basic research, both within an 

area of science and across areas of science? Given limited resources during this difficult 

budget environment, would NIST determine to discontinue research in a certain area if 

a new field of research shows promise'? In other words, how is the decision made about 

which research areas to prioritize? 

NIST has conducted numerous economic impact studies to understand the return on investment 
41 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

made in its research programs, as well as its extramural programs such as the Technology 

Innovation Program, and the Hollings Manufacturing Extcnsion Partnership (!lMEP) Program. 

In addition to those assessments, NIST uses other tools such as customer feedback on services 

provided through the MEl' program, and objective peer-review of scientific proposals. 

NIST works to continuously re-examine its research priorities to ensure that its research dollars 

arc being spent consistent with its mission and potential for transformational impact. This 

process involves input from NISrs constituents in industry, associations, universities, and 

others. As a result. at times NIST must make decisions as to whether to continue to invest in a 

particular research activity in order to better allocate its research dollars. 

How does NIST determine the halance of funding for basic research activities versus technology 

transfer activitics? To what extcnt does NIST target specific industries for technology transfer 

programs and how is the decision made on which industry sectors to target'! What does NIST 

view as the appropriate use of federal funding versus industry funding in technology transfer 

programs? 

NIST continually considers its priorities \Vitllin the context of its mission to promote U.S. innovation 

and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurcment science, standards, and technology in ways 

that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST does not specifically detemline 

the balance of funding for basic research activities versus applied research activities. Technology 

transfer activities occur as an integral element of both basic and applied research activities with funding 

to match the activities considered necessary to maximize impact. NIST uses strategic planning 

proccsses to dctcrmine the industries that will have the greatest mission-related impact. and in many 

instances leverages NIST programs across industries. However, NISI considers technology transfer in 

all programs through a multitude of mechanisms and has partnerships with industry that maximizes 

impact. 

On October 28. 201 L the President issued a Presidential Memorandum, "Accelerating Technology 

Transfer and Commercialization offederal Research in Support of High-gro\Vth Business," to improve 

results from technology transfer and commercialization activities from federal laboratories, including 

NIST. NIST has a lead role in coordinating, analyzing. and reporting on the performance oftcchnology 

transfer for the Department of Commerce and across Federal agencies. 

NIST's technology transfer activities are designed to disscminate the Institute's fundamental research 

rcsults and its measurements and standards research resu Its to industry and all other interested parties. 

In order to provide leading-edge seientiJic and technical work, NIST is required to have expertise in 

multiple disciplines, to maintain high levels of collaboration with organizations and people with diverse 

capabilities, and to have highly specialized facilities and tools. NIST uses numerous formal and 

informal mechanisms to promote innovation and ensure that the resulting technologies are broadly 

disseminated through collaboration. Technology transfer from NIST includes: 

Collaborations Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, Material Transfer 

Agreements, guest researchers, and informal exchanges of information 
42 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

State-of-the-art user facii ities 

• Nurturing post-doctoral researchers in our laboratories 

• Standard Reference Materials - objects or physical samples Jor which NIST has determined 

accurate property data 

• Standard Reference Data - well-documented numcric data for usc in technical problem-solving, 

research, and development 

• Making other databases software available to the public through downloads from NIST websites 

• Licensing olpatented technology developed by NIST 

• Documentary Standards Activities - NIST has nearly 400 statT involved with more than 100 

standards organization. 

• Journal articles and technical publications 

Calibrations 

• Training, and 

• Laboratory Accreditations 
43 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE DONNA EDWARDS (D-MD) U.S. 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

An OrervielV o(lhe Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal at the Naliol1allnstilule o{Standards and 

Technology 

Tuesday, March 6,2012 

1. The U.S. manufacturing sector, by itself, would represent the 9th largest global 

economy. However, U.S. manufacturing faces a significant number of 

challcnges. For example, the U.S. share of the high-tech market has fallen 

from 34 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2010, and China has surpassed the U.S. 

as the leading manufacturing country. I am pleased to see the emphasis NIST 

is placing on addressing our manufacturing challenges, including through the 

proposed Advanced Manufacturing Tcchnology Consortia program (A:\1Tech). 

I was disappointed that AMTech was not funded last year, as requested by 

NIST, and hope that the proposal will garner more support this year. Can you 

tell us why AM Tech is so important and how it will help bolster the 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers? Also, can you outline the specific 

objectives NIST has for AMTcch in FV 2013? 

Answer: 

The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia Program (AMTech) is an important 

component of a broad strategy needed to position U.S. manufacturers to be globally 

competitive. AMTech is designed to fill a critical funding gap in the innovation lifecycle 

by providing resources to establish industry-led consortia to prioritize and support basic and 

applied research on long-term, precompetitivc technology developments. AJv:ITech creates 

the incentive for multiple industry stakeholders to share financial and scientific resources, 

together with other partners including state and local governments as well as universities. 

community colleges, and federal laboratories. The need for partnerships and for research 

toward common, long-term research goals shared by many companies (including small and 

medium sized enterprises) has been noted by a number of recent reports, including the 

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology'S "Report to the President on 

Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing" (June 2(11). 

As you noted, AMTech was originally put forward in the FY 2012 budget. In FY 2011, wc 

initiated planning activities to help prepare for the possible implementation of AMTech. 

This includes the issuc of a Request for Information on how to structure the proposed new 

program (AMTech), issued July 22, 2011. Additionally, the NIST Visiting Committee on 

Advanced Technology, NIST's primary Federal Advisory Committee, recently produced 

the report "Recommended Design Principles for AMTech" (February 2(12). We will use 

this information to infi)rm the programmatic design of AMTech if funded in FY 2013. 

Specifically, in FY 2013 wc would issue two types of funding competitions under the 

AMTech program. One competition would be for planning grants to new or existing 

consortia. These planning grants are intended to stimulate partners to come together and 

develop technology roadmaps that outline the needed technology developments that are 
44 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

critical to the success of the consortia partners in the long run. A second competition would 

be launched for the award of implementation grants. These grants would be larger, and are 

to be awarded to existing eonsOltia to provide additional funds to conduct research in linc 

with a consortium's own technology roadmap. 

2. A recent survey by the OECD shows that CEOs value access to a skilled 

workforce above the cost of labor and materials when determining where they'll 

locate their manufacturing facilities. This demonstrates the importance of 

having a highly-skilled workforce here in the U.S. How does the FY2013 

budget request reflect NIST's efforts to improve science and math education, 

particularly as it relates to the skilled workforce required for advanced 

manufacturing? 

We agree that workforce development is a critical need for the future of advanced 

manufacturing in the U.S. 

NIST has a number of efforts in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 

(STEM) cducation. For example, NIST hosts an ongoing series of programs for 

undergraduate studcnts and middle school science teachers designed to share the excitement 

of doing research at NIST. In the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF) 

program, students take part in an eleven-week summer research program, working side-byside with NIST researchers. For teachers, a summer workshop and after-school events 

during the school year provide information on the latest research applicable to the middle 

school curriculum and offer the opportunity to tryout activities and materials designed for 

use in the classroom. 

The NIST postdoctoral program provides opportunities for outstanding young scientists to 

gain training in measurement science. The postdoctoral program is critical in bringing new 

idcas and approaches to NIST and for transferring mcasurement scicnce and standards 

expertise to the next generation of scientists and enginecrs. The recently approved NIST 

FY 2012 spend plan assigns an additional $3M to support STEM activitics. The funds will 

help provide opportunities for outstanding young scientists to gain training in measurement 

sciences. This training is critical to ensuring that NIST has access to the top quality 

technical talent necessary to maintain leading research programs that address national 

priorities. Of the FY 2012 STEM funds, $2M will fund an additional 10-12 researchers in 

the NIST postdoctoral program. The further $lM will support STEM-related grants to 

expand oPPOliunities for minority and underrepresented popUlations. 

New in FY 2013, the NTST Manufacturing Fellowships Program is intended to leverage the 

deep measurement science and standards expertise within the NIST laboratories to help 

transfer NIST knowledgc to the private sector. The Manufacturing Fellowships Program 

will providc funding to support engineers and scientists to work on the NIST campus with 

NIST staff on the measuremcnt and standards required for advanced manufacturing. This 

program is targeted at researchers from companies and non-profit organizations as well as 

recent job-sceking graduates with scientitic and engineering degrees from academic 

institutions including community colleges and universities. 
45 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

3. I'm worried about the void that will be left at NIST with the tcrmination of 

the Technology Innovation Program and its predecessor, the Advanced 

Tcchnology Program. These important programs funded the development of 

transformative technologies with the potential to spur economic growth and 

job creation. Were these programs effective at mecting their goal of accelerating 

the devclopmcnt of early-stage, innovative technologies? Docs NIST have any 

data about the contribution of either of these programs to economic growth or 

job creation'! 

Both the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and its predecessor. Advanced Technology 

Program (ATP). were eHective at meeting their goals of accelerating the development of 

early-stage, innovative technologies. TIP was a relatively young program (established 

under Section 3012 of the America COMPETES Act of2007. Public Law 110-69), and 

today the projects of TIP awardees have not yet fully matured. Yet, based on its 22-year 

history of funding high-risk, high-reward research. NIST believes that the benefits accruing 

to the Nation from TIP-funded research will be realized ancr the projects end through the 

attraction of additional R&D, the hiring of additional staff, new revenues. and benefits to 

the consumers from new and improved products. 

While it is too early to assess the economic impact of its investments. TIP has supported a 

substantial number of jobs. Based upon the budgets from the 38 TIP proposals receiving an 

award. approximately 600 positions (full- and part-lime) were to be involved and supported 

through TIP funding. The number of actual positions is expected to be lower since the lack 

of an FY 2012 appropriation required TIP to tenninate funding early for 12 of the 38 

projects. 

A TP had a muc h longer track record than TIP. and its impacts are more clearly 

documented. For example, ATP and its investments have resulted in billions of dollars of 

benefits. From a sample I of just 36 of the projects lunded by ATP: 

• $79.2M in government investment yiclded revenues and savings resulting from 

products or processes incorporating technologies developed under ATP awards in 

excess of$2.7B. 

• In many of the 36 investments. significant cost savings accrued to companies andlor 

customers 

o CombineNet, Inc .. alone accounted for more than $1 B in customer savings 

resulting from a $1.9M ATP investment 

Additionally, ATP investments also addressed technical barriers that, when overcome. 

enabled new sub-industries such as "pharmacogenomics" (http://'W,vw.atp.nist.gov/clso/wp04-01/dnadiag-finalJillt). 

In aggregate, the 824 ATP-funded projects from 1990 through 2007 have rcsulted in: 

1 Unpublished findings based on ATP's Business Reporting System survey data with follow-up calls to award 

recipients. 
46 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

• More than 1500 patents that have been issued based upon the ATP research 

• More than 1800 publications that have shared the scientific approaches and findings 

from the ATP research 

• Commercial outcomes (product sales. cost savings, or licensing revenues) in almost 

one-half(48%) ofal! projects 

• Success in attracting additional external R&D support by more than half (60%) of 

ATP projects 

• Rich partnerships with small businesses in more than three-fourths (76%) ofATP 

projects that involved a small busincss (fewer than 500 employees) 

ATP also had a significant impaet on employment grcm1h in small businesses that pursued 

ATP-funded manufacturing projects. For example. an ATP studl that addressed 

employment gro\"1h in the 1353 small companies leading single-company manufacturing 

projects between 1990 and 2004, demonstrates substantial and sustained employment 

growth: 

• 78% of the companies gained cmployment 

• The average gain in employment (including employment loss in the calculation) was 

67 employees 

• Since the average employment size at time of award for these projects was 54 

employees, this average gain of67 employees represents more than a 100% gain in 

employment for these small manufacturing companies 

1 Internal ATP Fact Sheet (2011) based on ATP's Business Reporting System survey data. 

3 This study had a survey response rate of about 50% (or 67 projects). 
47 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE JOHN SARBANES (D-MD) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee 011 Technology and Innovation 

An Overview o{the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal at the National Institute o{Stalldards alld 

Ttlc/molog)' 

Tuesday. March 6. 2012 

1. Has there been interest from other agencies in entering into a 'Supplier 

Scouting' partnership, similar to that of the Dol', DoE, or DoD? Does MEl' 

have plans on expanding the 'Supplier Scouting' program to leverage its success 

to date, perhaps scaling up the program so it could support all federal agencies 

with their contracting needs? 

Yes. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership's (MEP) field network of 1600 

people across thc country who work with manufacturers every day, provide a powerful tool 

that has been turned to helping large original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) find the 

domestic suppliers for components and parts. Other agencies have taken notice of MEP' s 

supplier scouting program. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering how 

the MEP supplier scouting etIorts could playa role in SBA's American Supplier Initiative. 

MEP has also been discussing how to link its supplier scouting initiative with the DOD 

Connecting American Manufacturers (CAM) program. 

2. How can the 'Supplier Seouting' program better anticipate tbe supply chain 

needs of the federal government so as to relay those needs to U.S. 

manufacturers? Are there opportunities to better telegraph the federal 

government's future supply chain needs to U.S. manufacturers, allowing 

manufacturers the opportunity to expand their capability in advance of the 

federal government's demand? 

Building on the activities with the Department ofTransp01iation (DOT) around the Next 

Generation Rail forums, MEP is holding a business matching event at the MEP 

Manufacturing Innovations 2012 conference in May. Through this eHort. MEP is bringing 

together manufacturers to meet with Federal agencies and original equipment 

manufacturers. This event will provide manufacturers with an understanding of the 

necessary certifications and agency requirements. as well as potential procurement 

opportunities. 

3. Within the $128 million MEP budget, what amount is devoted to the 

'Supplier Scouting' program? Are these dollars statutorily dedicated to the 

'Supplier Scouting' program or rather appropriated at Director Roger 

Kilmer's discretion? 
48 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

NIST MEP has two full-time employees dedicated to the supplier scouting program. They 

work with over 150 MEP Center and local partner staff, focusing their efforts through a 

designated point of contact in each of the 60 MEP Centers, and coordinating the overall 

effort with 10 regional MEP Center staff fiom across the MEl' system. Funding for the 

supplier scouting initiative is determincd by the MEP and NISI management based on 

opportunities NIST MEl' statridentifies while working with OEMs and other Federal 

agencies. NIST MEl' funding is supplemented with support from other Federal agencies 

based on specitie requirements of each federal agency. As MEl' continues discussion with 

other agencies around how supplier scouting can support their "Buy American" efforts, 

MEP will look to expand the program and the resources to support the supplier scouting 

initiative. 
(49) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
50 

SUBMITTED BY DR. PATRICK GALLAGHER, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY AND

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
51 

Note: a number oFstudies were conducted prior to 2000, but are not included in this list 

Year Industry Project/Output BeR 

2000 Pharmaceuticals 

2000 Photonics 

20()O Chl!mical~ 

cholesterol measlIrement/SRM 

laser andfiber optic pO'>l'er and energy 

calibration!calibrations * 

sul/ilr infhssilfitels/SRM 

4 

7 

113 

2000 Building Technology construction system integration & automation technologies 5 

(industrial) 

2001 Building Technologv Fire Dynamics Simulation 

2001 Electronics Josephson voltage standard/SRM 

10! 

5 

construction system integration & automation technologies 4 

2001 Building Technology (commercial) 

200] InFormation 

Technology 

2001 Il1iiJrmation 

Technology 

2002 Chemicals 

2002 Manufacturing 

2008 Semiconductors 

2008 Semiconductors 

2009 Materials 

2010 InjiJrmation 

Technology 

2010 InFormation 

Technology 

16 total studies 

data encryption standards/standard conformance test 

methodl'* 

role-based access control/rejerence models (RBAC) 

National Traceable ReFerence Materials Program/SRD; 

calibration services 

STEP/std,; conjhrmance test methods & senJices 

superjilling research techniques 

100tck materials characterization 

consortium-based combinatorial methods development and 

transfer 

search engines (TREC) 

computer security (RBA C) 

102 

109 

21 

8 

6 

9 

9 

5 

249 

Average hene/it-cost ratio: 47 
52 
53 

cusiolners 

~\ bro~ld of 

SCI in FY 2011 

MEP Clients: Why They Chose MEP 

MEP Clients; Top 10 !ndushie:; Served MEP C\Jenis: Numher ofEmployces 

FY 2010'" MEP CLIENT IMPACTS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MEP ACTIVITIES 

Increased/Retained Sales 

New Sales 

Retained Sales 

Cost Savings 

New Client Investments 

Jobs Created 

Jobs Retained 

$8.2 billion 

$).6 billion 

$4.6 billion 

$1.3 billion 

$1.9 billion 

19,170 

41,32 7 

projects completed in FY2010. Of the 9,952 clients selected to be 

are a conservative snapshot ofbeneRts. Recurrmg or cumulative benefits 
54 

Æ 

The N 1ST Manufacturing Extension Partnership is a nationwide system of 

resources, transforming manufacturers to compete globally, supporting 

supply chain integration, and providing access to technology for 

improved productivity. MEP is built around manufacturing extension 

centers locally positioned throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico addressing 

the critical and often unique needs of America's manufacturers. 

'.'-./ '.'i \'i N! 'i 1 C, 0 V, /.,1 I • J • .l! D 0 M 1 :-'1 i G