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

80–560PDF 2013

AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET PROPOSAL 

AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–21 

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. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

HON. THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky, Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, April 18, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Thomas Massie, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology; Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 27 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET PROPOSAL AT THE 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY (NIST) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Massie 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman MASSIE. The Subcommittee on Technology will come to 

order. 

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

of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal at the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-and-testimony disclosures for today’s witness panel. I now recognize myself 

for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, we examine one portion of the President’s budget proposal—the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for NIST. Last week, 

I had the opportunity to visit NIST’s campus in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, and to see a sample of ongoing research activities. In my 

time there, I was able to visit the Net-Zero Test Facility, the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, and the Center for Neutron Research. Dr. Gallagher, I want to thank you and let you 

know that your staff took very good care of me and my staff as 

well. And their enthusiasm for NIST’s work was apparent throughout my tour. 

The Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for NIST totals $928 million, an increase of $177.5 million or almost 24 percent from the 

Fiscal Year 2012 enacted level. Now, this Committee has a long, 

bipartisan record of support for NIST and its contributions to research and development, but I think I need to repeat that figure. 

The President has requested a 24 percent increase for NIST in Fiscal Year 2014. That type of increase in a time of decreasing budgets will be very difficult to achieve and require significant changes 

in other areas. 

The requested increases would be devoted in large part to bolster 

advanced manufacturing initiatives by NIST, as well as in areas 

such as cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and 

broadband communications. 

We are here today to learn more about the justification for this 

request and I am appreciative of the opportunity to learn more 

about how Fiscal Year 2014 funds would be prioritized by NIST. I 

thank our witness, Dr. Gallagher, for his time today. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Massie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN THOMAS MASSIE

Good Morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing. Today we will 

examine the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

I would like to thank Dr. Gallagher for appearing before us today. 

Today, we examine one portion of the President’s budget proposal, the fiscal year 

2014 budget request for NIST. Last week I had the opportunity to visit NIST’s campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and to see a sample of ongoing research activities. 

In my time there, I was able to visit the Net Zero Test Facility, the Center for 

Nanoscale Science and Technology, and the Center for Neutron Research. Dr. Gallagher, I want you to know that your staff took good care of me, and their enthusiasm 

for NIST’s work was apparent throughout my tour. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for NIST totals $928 million, an increase of 

$177.5 million or almost 24 percent from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 

Now this Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for NIST and its contributions to research and development. But I think I need to repeat that figure. 

The President has requested a 24 percent increase for NIST in fiscal year 2014. 
9 

That type of increase in a time of decreasing budgets will be very difficult to 

achieve, and require significant changes in other areas. 

The requested increases would be devoted in large part to bolster advanced manufacturing initiatives by NIST, as well as in areas such as cybersecurity, disaster resilience, forensic science, and broadband communications. 

We are here today to learn more about the justification for this request, and I am 

appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about how fiscal year 2014 funds 

would be prioritized by NIST. I thank our witness, Dr. Gallagher, for his time today. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Massie, for holding this 

morning’s hearing to examine the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request 

for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I would 

also like to thank Dr. Gallagher for testifying today and for his 

leadership in NIST. It is good to see you again, Dr. Gallagher. 

NIST is an economic engine for this Nation. For more than 100 

years the Institute’s broad and deep technical expertise has advanced measurement science, standards, and technological innovation, strengthening our manufacturing sector and boosting innovation. In this time of painfully high unemployment, we need NIST. 

We need NIST’s expertise more than ever. 

And this time in which developing nations are taking the lead 

not only in assembling products, but also inventing products, we 

need strategic investment in research, development, and education. 

I am pleased that the President’s budget recognizes the importance 

of NIST and gives the agency a prominent role in the Administration’s efforts to revitalize American manufacturing. 

The Administration’s budget includes a number of initiatives 

that can strengthen and reinforce the competitive position of the 

United States. For instance, the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program that will create public-private partnerships to address technical barriers that are stopping the growth of 

advanced manufacturing here at home. It simply makes sense to leverage Federal resources to bring companies together to solve common challenges. It bolsters innovation and creates jobs. And that 

is what we should be concerned about: jobs, jobs, jobs. 

The President’s proposal also advances emerging fields such as 

biomanufacturing and nanomanufacturing. This research will provide a foundation for new and existing companies to flourish, producing high-quality, high-paying jobs that will remain with us over 

the long haul. Whether we like it or not, the truth is that most of 

our competitors are putting significant and targeted resources towards helping businesses, small and large, accelerate the commercialization of innovative technologies. They are doing it. I don’t 

think we can afford to just stand by and watch these companies set 

up shop somewhere else. I don’t think we can afford to just watch 

as these technologies and jobs take hold somewhere else. 

We need to support the Administration’s proposal for a National 

Network for Manufacturing Innovation. This proposal is intended 

to help bridge the gap from research and development to commercialization through proof-of-concept activities and direct collaboration with industry. It is also intended to build up the skills of our 

workforce, preparing students for the manufacturing jobs of the future. I often worry about the class of 2013, high school and college. 

While some questions remain about these manufacturing institutes, I believe the concept has merit and I am looking forward to 

learning more about it today. 
10 

I am also interested in learning more about how the current 

budget request will advance NIST’s effort to make our communities 

more resilient to natural disasters. I was born and raised in South 

Florida. I have seen my fair share of the devastation of severe 

weather. While we cannot stop hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes from happening, we can and must do all that we can to 

make sure that our communities have the capacity and the tools 

they need to respond and recover from these events. 

Mr. Chairman and I look forward to working with you and our 

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

its crucial role of promoting innovation, increasing competitiveness, 

and enhancing our security. And I yield back the balance of my 

time, two seconds. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER FREDERICA S. WILSON

Thank you, Chairman Massie, for holding this morning’s hearing to examine the 

fiscal year 2014 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I’d also like to thank Dr. Gallagher for testifying today and for his leadership at NIST. It’s good to see you again. 

NIST is an economic engine for this nation. For more than 100 years, the institute’s broad and deep technical expertise has advanced measurement science, standards, and technological innovation—strengthening our manufacturing sector and 

boosting innovation. 

In this time of painfully high unemployment, we need NIST’s expertise more than 

ever. In this time in which developing nations are taking the lead not only in assembling products but also in inventing products, we need strategic investments in research, development, and education. 

I am pleased that the President’s budget recognizes the importance of NIST and 

gives the agency a prominent role in the Administration’s efforts to revitalize American manufacturing. 

The Administration’s budget includes a number of initiatives that can strengthen 

and reinforce the competitive position of the United States. For instance, the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program will create public-private 

partnerships to address technical barriers that are stopping the growth of advanced 

manufacturing here at home. It simply makes sense to leverage federal resources 

to bring companies together to solve common challenges. It boosts innovation and 

creates jobs. 

The President’s proposal also advances emerging fields such as biomanufacturing 

and nanomanufacturing. This research will provide a foundation for new and existing companies to flourish-producing high-quality, high-paying jobs that will remain 

with us over the long-haul. 

Whether we like it or not, the truth is, that most of our competitors are putting 

significant and targeted resources towards helping businesses—small and large—accelerate the commercialization of innovative technologies. I don’t think we can afford 

to just stand by and watch those companies setup shop somewhere else. I don’t 

think we can afford to just watch as those technologies and jobs take hold somewhere else. We need to support the Administration’s proposal for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. 

This proposal is intended to help bridge the gap from research and development 

to commercialization through proof-of-concept activities and direct collaboration with 

industry. It is also intended to build up the skills of our workforce—preparing students for the manufacturing jobs of the future. While some questions remain about 

these manufacturing institutes, I believe the concept has merit and I am looking forward to learning more about it today. 

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

advance NIST’s efforts to make our communities more resilient to natural disasters. 

Born and raised in South Florida, I have seen my fair share of the devastation of 

severe weather. While we cannot stop hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes from 

happening, we can and must do all that we can to make sure that our communities 

have the capacity and the tools they need to respond and recover from these events. 

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 
11 

to fulfill its crucial role: promoting innovation, increasing our competitiveness, and 

enhancing our security. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. 

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. Dr. Gallagher is the 14th Director of NIST and the first to hold the position of Under Secretary 

of Commerce. He received his Ph.D. in physics at the University of 

Pittsburgh. Thanks again to our witness for being here this morning. 

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

minutes after which the Members of the Committee will have five 

minutes each task questions. I now recognize Dr. Gallagher to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK GALLAGHER 

UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Chairman Massie, thank you very much for this 

opportunity to be here today, and Ranking Member Wilson, it is 

great to see both of you. And since this is my first official event 

in front of the Subcommittee, let me congratulate both of you on 

your leadership positions and to say for the record that I am looking forward to working with both of you. 

Today, I would like to discuss and give you a quick overview of 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for NIST. This 

budget reflects the important role that NIST plays as part of the 

President’s ‘‘Plan to Make America a Magnet for Jobs by Investing 

in Manufacturing.’’ 

From transforming communities across the country into global 

centers of manufacturing through the establishment of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to strengthening supply chains through MEP to supporting innovative manufacturing 

technologies by investing in the R&D of the NIST laboratories, the 

proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget reflects NIST’s role in the Administration’s efforts to strengthen manufacturing through critical 

investments in research and development. 

NIST’s mission is to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness through advancing measurement science, standards, and 

technology and it is well-aligned with the priority goals articulated 

by the President. The NIST budget is comprised of three discretionary spending accounts, as well as a mandatory proposal. 

Mr. Chairman, the President’s discretionary funding request for 

$928.3 million reflects an increase of 177.5 million above Fiscal 

Year 2012 enacted levels, and more than half of the proposed increased funding would be focused on advanced manufacturing research both at NIST laboratories and through industry-led con-
12 

sortia. This budget was carefully crafted to address pressing needs 

for standards and measurement work principally in emerging technology areas and to provide the seed funding to encourage industry 

and academia to come together to address common technology 

problems that are too large for individual institutions to tackle by 

itself. 

The request for the laboratory programs of $693.7 million recognizes the important role NIST labs play in advancing innovation. 

The request is an increase of 126.7 million from the Fiscal Year 

2012 enacted level. Within the request, current Administration priority areas targeted for budget increases include advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, healthcare information technology, disaster resilience, forensics, advanced communications, and the NIST 

Centers of Excellence Program. The request will help ensure that 

NIST laboratory research, facilities, and service programs continue 

to work at the cutting edge of science and will assist U.S. industry 

as well as the broader science and engineering communities with 

the measurements, data, and technologies they need to further innovate and make sure the United States remains industrially competitive. 

The request for the NIST Industrial Technology Services account 

is $174.5 million representing an increase of $46.1 from the Fiscal 

Year 2012 enacted level. The account includes $153.1 million for 

the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, or 

MEP, and $25 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology 

Consortia program, or AMTech. AMTech will establish industry-led 

consortia to identify and prioritize research projects supporting 

long-term industrial research needs. 

The Construction of Research Facilities request is $60 million. 

This is an increase of about $5 million. The increased funding will 

allow NIST to reduce the backlog of maintenance projects on its facilities and to improve the overall condition of them. This construction request also provides for the first year of a major project to 

renovate Wing 5 of the Building 1 laboratory complex at NIST’s 

Boulder facility. This building has been undergoing renovations in 

stages for some years now and the continuation of this project is 

critical. 

As part of the Administration’s effort to revitalize manufacturing, 

the budget proposes a $1 billion mandatory account to establish a 

National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI, which 

aims to bring together companies, universities, and community colleges. 

Mr. Chairman, also included in this request are scientific programmatic initiatives that are tied to the overarching themes of 

this budget. In addition to the strong advanced manufacturing request, the cybersecurity request for protecting the Nation’s cyber 

infrastructure is a top priority of the Administration. The initiative 

will enable NIST to strengthen its core cybersecurity R&D program 

that are the critical foundation upon which our ability to effectively 

engage with industry on cybersecurity is built. 

The NIST laboratory programs, along with its outreach efforts 

and standards development work, are dedicated to providing U.S. 

industry with the tools they need to innovate and compete and 
13 

flourish in today’s fierce global economy. And I look forward to 

working with you and the Members of the Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman MASSIE. I thank the witness for his testimony. Thank 

you, Dr. Gallagher. 

Reminding Members that the Committee rules limit questioning 

to five minutes, the Chair will at this point open the round of questions. And I will recognize myself for five minutes. So in your testimony you mentioned that there is $1 billion in 

a mandatory fund to be provided for the manufacturing initiatives. 

This is more than the annual budget for NIST, and so my question 

is where—how will these programs occur if the billion dollars is not 

provided and will this come from NIST, the DOE, the DOD? Where 

will this billion dollars come from? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So thank you for the question. So the NNMI 

proposal is designed to provide a one-time investment, not a continuous investment, to create basically a research infrastructure for 

the country. The research infrastructure is designed actually to attract private sector, in other words, industry’s R&D funding. We 

are trying to create a condition where a group of companies acting 

together can do something that they would not be willing to do on 

their own. 

The President’s proposal would base the program at NIST. The 

reason for that is we have a very broad vision and set the context 

for NIST managing the program would be to enhance the competitiveness of the country to look at all of the different possible sectors 

as we ran the program. And as I envision it, the funding would be 

available, you know, for some finite period of time. It would go out 

as a set of grants to support the formation of these institutes. 

If that—that would require legislation, and I think this Committee would likely play a key role in developing that legislation. 

And your question is if that legislation does not occur, where does 

the funding come from? And I think what would happen, given the 

fact that these institutes seem to be filling a key need, is we would 

have to leverage existing programs to make that happen. And in 

fact, the Administration both last year using DOD funding, combined with some funding from other agencies—and the President 

announced his intent to do three more institutes this year—you are 

going to be leveraging existing programs at other agencies, and 

that is why the Defense Department and DOE have been identified. 

Chairman MASSIE. So—okay. I understand that the DOE and the 

DOD may provide some fund if the billion dollars is not provided 

for by Congress, but my follow-up question would be, will NIST 

contribute any discretionary funding in Fiscal Year 2014 to those 

institutes? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I think it would seem natural that at some 

level we would, but again, without a specific program, it would 

have to be in the context of our existing programs. And so NIST 

participation in that context would probably have one of two flavors. It could be supporting the industrial R&D in measurement 

science, a core part of the NIST mission. That would be very attractive because this is designed to be the industry’s concentration of 

R&D. I can’t imagine who else NIST would want to work with. 

The other area, of course, is in the small and mid-sized business. 

So the NIST MEP program is designed to provide that outreach to 

small and mid-sized manufacturers, any institutes will play prob-
28 

ably a magnet store role. And when you have that concentration of 

capability and large companies want to be located near that, supply 

chains will be located near those big companies. And I think there 

is a very natural role for the NIST MEP program to play a supporting role. 

So we think there would be a good match for NIST to participate 

with the centers. 

Chairman MASSIE. Okay. Thank you. I have another minute 

here. I would briefly like to ask you about the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel that was created in 2009. This is of particular interest to me. I am interested in energy and the efficient use of energy because for all the talk about alternative energy, it is a lot 

cheaper to save energy than it is to try and create it with alternate 

means. 

So I understand that the leadership of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel has recently been handed over from NIST to a nonprofit organization driven by the private sector. Can you please explain in the brief time remaining what NIST’s role is in the continued development of the so-called Smart Grid, and is NIST directly 

funding any Smart Grid activities in Fiscal Year 2014? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So the quick answer, of course, is that NIST will 

remain very involved with the private sector-led effort. In the 

United States almost all standards efforts are led by the private 

sector. And the mandate given to NIST is twofold. One is to support those efforts and the other is to act as the go-between between 

the standards bodies and Federal needs so between the Energy Department, the energy regulators, and so forth. So we would need 

to be—remain involved. Our role will increasingly be technical, 

supplying the technical underpinnings of those standards, whether 

they are data communication standards or tested measurement 

standards. And we do anticipate continuing to provide support to 

that effort in ’14 and beyond. 

Chairman MASSIE. Just quickly if you could answer quickly, how 

much money do you think will be spent in 2014 on the Smart Grid 

from NIST? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, the amount that we have reallocated mostly from internal reprioritization is between $3 to $4 million a year 

in both technical and coordination. 

Chairman MASSIE. Okay. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

And I now recognize Ms. Wilson for five minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Gallagher, as you know, over the past several years our Nation has experienced historic and devastating natural disasters and 

numerous communities across America are still recovering and rebuilding. Hurricane Sandy was the Nation’s costliest storm since 

Katrina, killing hundreds of people in its path and causing billions 

of dollars in damage. I am pleased to see that the budget request 

includes an additional $5 million to support NIST’s work in the 

area of disaster resilience. Can you please describe this initiative 

and the activities NIST intends to undertake to improve the performance of buildings and infrastructure in the face of a disaster? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. I believe you know this is a critical 

area, as you know, because of the potential impact it has on so 
29 

many. The NIST role actually ties to the answer I just gave the 

Chairman, which is to support the standards setting. And in this 

case, for resiliency, what we are often talking about are standards 

that are written in a way that they become model codes. In the 

United States building structures, houses are regulated or managed if you will at the local level. Local building codes determine 

the standard of performance that we expect in our built infrastructure. 

And the way we ensure the built infrastructure is protected is 

twofold. One, we support, technically, a set of standards that can 

be adopted by local jurisdictions. They are called model codes. And 

two, we try to learn from experience. Unfortunately, in the case of 

disasters, we learn when something terrible has happened. And the 

NIST program is designed to work with local communities, to understand why certain types of damage was experienced in the face 

of a natural disaster, whether it is earthquake, wind, fire, and to 

basically reflect that new understanding by improving the building 

code standards. 

And this has become critically important, and the NIST effort is 

designed to approach this from a multi-hazard perspective so that 

we can quickly identify lessons learned, come to an understanding 

about how do we improve our built infrastructure, and then work 

with the buildings and code communities to make those improvements. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. One other question. I have a little bit of time. I understand that the budget includes a $25 million increase to create Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Centers, 

MTACs, as part of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP 

program. As you know, small businesses are the top job creators 

and the lifeblood of our economy. 

In your testimony, you described how this new program would 

provide technology transition services to small manufacturers. 

Please elaborate on this new program. Specifically, how will these 

centers and their focus areas be selected? Also, how does this program build upon or relate to the existing supply chain and technology acceleration services being provided by the MEP centers? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. So the Manufacturing Technology 

Acceleration Centers are a concept that is based on your observation, which is the small and mid-sized companies are where most 

of the employment growth and job growth occur, including manufacturing. It is also increasingly where the innovation is occurring. 

You know, new technologies and processes are being developed by 

small and mid-sized manufacturers, and large companies don’t support those manufacturers in the way they did in the past. The relationship between the big OEM manufacturers in the supply chain 

has certainly changed over time, and that has resulted in changes 

for MEP. 

So what we are trying to do is, through a grant program, issue 

a grant to an organization or center that would develop services 

that are technical in nature and would be addressing a particular 

supply chain. And this would—this—whatever—these services, 

these—let’s—let me give you an example. Let’s say we wanted to 

support advanced aerospace companies that want to be suppliers 

into the aerospace industry. Well, if you want to be a supplier to 
30 

aerospace, you are going to have to learn how to work in their environment, what their expectations are to meet their certification requirements and have the tools and quality assurance that you need 

to be an effective supplier in aerospace. 

What we would like to do is work with experts in the aerospace 

industry to develop services that small—that can be offered to 

small and mid-sized manufacturers that have this interest. So the 

MTAC centers would develop this content and it can be deployed 

through the entire national network of existing MEP centers. That 

is the idea behind MTAC. It is a supply chain focus, a technology 

focus for the MEP network. 

Ms. WILSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schweikert from Arizona for five minutes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Doctor, what you get to do is fascinating and some of the things 

you oversee, but I have always had first one global question. Think 

of everything you oversee, everything that is done at NIST. Can 

you walk me through some of the activities that could be found nowhere else, no university, no tech center, nowhere else that solely, 

solely exist at NIST? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. I sure can. And I thank you for the appreciation 

of the work. The most unique thing that you would find it NIST 

that you would find nowhere else are those activities that have 

been given to NIST and no one else. And they actually go to our 

core mission, and that is we define the basis of measurement for 

the United States—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, Doctor—okay. And that is almost the constitutional carve-out. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. That is correct. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But many of those measurements are actually, 

you know, MIT or those—will help build the standards but NIST 

will refine them and publish them? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, in the case of the actual measurement 

standards, it is the research even underneath that is probably 

unique to NIST. And so if you look at areas where NIST is—leads 

the world in its scientific capability, it tends to be in the areas 

where we have to be at the forefront because the basis of a measurement—let’s say the definition of time—has to be more accurate 

than any application of that measurement. And so we tend to be 

at the forefront in those particular areas. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. Mr. Chairman—Doctor, so—okay. The 

measurement standards, what else? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. The other areas would be ones that have resulted from the standards coordination function. And they tend to 

be in these system areas, so cybersecurity. The nature of the 

cybersecurity research at NIST, because of the interface between 

both the Government needs and industry tend to be quite different 

than something you would find anywhere else. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And Doctor, you are telling me I could not find 

that anywhere else in the Nation or in America? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, it is always dangerous to say that because 

you are going to find cybersecurity research all over the world in 
31 

fact, but the composition of the research program at NIST would 

look different. So it depends what you mean by overlap. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And one of the natures of my question is so 

often we sort of have I guess the pop culture term is mission creep 

of NIST, you know, its core function of being, you know, the czar 

of time and measurements and it is almost a constitutional requirement. And yet we often ask you to do so many other things and 

reach into other activities. And I am—the more I am, you know, 

here in Congress, starting to wonder should we actually be pushing 

you the other direction and focus on your core competence and stay 

out of some of the other affiliated activities? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I don’t know if you would have to push us 

much because we try to stay close to our core competency as well. 

I have always believed that as an agency, mission focus is one of 

the most important things you maintain. Mission creep—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But even some of the discussion we were just 

having with the supply chain, I can take you to a dozen universities around the country that literally have a mission statement 

that sounded exactly like you just described. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. But they don’t have a mission to provide—in 

fact, a lot of their capability in fact is working with NIST, so—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But they maintain some of the—but their mission statement, they are almost duplicative. Being from Arizona 

where you think about our level of aerospace—— 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Right. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —and technology and the some of the—at our 

engineering school at ASU and others where they are also helping 

with some of the supply chain technology and being able to, you 

know, become a provider—preferred providers and mechanics. It 

was amusing only because of the irony of, I think, I was hearing 

this on Tuesday from some folks from the engineering school saying almost the exact same language you just spoke. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. But in the case of the MTAC program it is not 

so much technical activity at the agency. It is a grant program that 

would in fact—maybe it would fund work in Arizona to provide— 

what we are providing is just the connection with all these—the 

hundreds of thousands of manufacturers through—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And Mr. Chairman—Doctor, you don’t believe 

those relationships, those contacts happen in dozens of other functions whether it be associations, that thing called the Internet? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I certainly believe that there is many—I 

do believe there are many ways of providing that and one of them 

is the NIST program to provide that outreach by partnering with 

the States. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. You are right, that is not unique. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I know it is always uncomfortable having 

actually run a government agency at one time where we are getting pulled because we, you know, our available talent and getting 

pulled away from our core mission, and particularly in a world 

with budget restraint and lots of talent and the ability to share it 

and communicate it, it is something I am going to continue to try 

to understand better in NIST, and you may see me being a very 

aggressive advocate of support and making sure you have the re-
32 

sources on your core and being very concerned about moving away 

from that. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MASSIE. Now, we are in the second round of questioning and to start again I will yield myself five minutes. 

Dr. Gallagher, one of the more interesting things that I witnessed at—during my trip to NIST were the user facilities, or the 

user centers, where outside researchers or even commercial institutions could come and use your facilities, and some of them are very 

unique such as the nuclear reactor that provides a stream of neutrons to bombard things to give us visibility into the invisible and 

also the micromachining tools that use ion beams. These tools are 

very expensive and hard for other people to acquire, and so I sort 

of like the library—type model that you have there where outside 

parties can come and use those. 

Of course, one measurement of whether those tools are the right 

tools to provide is whether the usage level of those. And I was encouraged to hear that you are somewhat oversubscribed for those 

tools. So my question is in trying to offset the cost for those, there 

are fees charged to commercial entities. And how close do those 

fees come to providing for the cost of those tools and how could you 

get closer to break-even? I am almost certain it doesn’t break-even, 

but how could you come closer to breakeven? Could you—should 

you maybe raise the price on those if they are oversubscribed? 

Thank you. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So in the case of national user facilities in the 

United States, there are two types of cost recovery that can be 

done. One is federal—supporting federally funded research. And 

both of the facilities you identified predominantly are used by researchers that are funded by other Federal agencies doing the 

work. And the long-standing U.S. position there has been rather 

than charge one agency to pay for the services at another through 

a user fee to basically—it is the steward-partner model. The 

stewarding agency that runs the facility operates the cost and provides the beam time on purely a merit basis, on the quality of the 

proposal without charging a fee. And it has been found over a long 

period of time that that results in the decisions being based on the 

best science for this limited capability rather than the capacity to 

pay. 

In the case of company use, when a company is going to use a 

unique capability like this for their own purposes and capture the 

data and not publish it—in other words, there is no public benefit—we charge full cost recovery, including the amortization of the 

facility. And I think the break-even or not just depends on, you 

know, the fraction of work that is being done proprietary, which 

tends not to be exceedingly high in these cases. And part of that 

is by design. These cutting-edge tools tend to be used most often 

in the precompetitive realm. So—— 

Chairman MASSIE. So maybe you could price them at their value 

instead of at their cost and use some of the—if there is a differential, use some of the extra money to offset the research costs. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, the cost recovery rules are in OMB’s Circular A–130. I am going to get that wrong, but in one of the OMB 

circulars. And there are in fact two ways to recover cost. One is by 
33 

cost recovery, full cost, and the other is by market value. The problem you run into with these unique facilities is how do you determine the market value? 

Chairman MASSIE. Right. Well, if it is oversubscribed, then 

maybe it is underpriced. But I hear your point that some of the 

subscriptions are from other research labs, not from commercial entities. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, again, from a pure science perspective, we 

like oversubscription because it means that the selection committees are discriminating and really selecting the best of the best. 

You actually—most grant programs like to see that. So happy to 

talk to you more—— 

Chairman MASSIE. Okay. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. —about that if—— 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is 

very sufficient. 

So in the first round of questions we talked about the Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Centers and how that is going to 

work through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. 

So my question would be there is $25 million in the budget to do 

this new manufacturing program. If that $25 million is not provided, do you anticipate using funds from the MEP program to 

work with the MTAC program? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So let me try to clarify. The MTAC program is 

part of MEP. It is a name we gave to basically grants that are developing content for the MEP rather than the grants that go to the 

centers that are delivering services. So it is designed to augment 

what MEP does by giving it technology services that have been developed by that sector. So it is really part of the same program. 

Chairman MASSIE. I hate to be a pessimist but if the funding for 

the MEP program is the same this year as it was last year, will 

you be able to fund the expansion of its role into the MTAC program using existing MEP funds at all? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Not very much. So the—most of the funding for 

the MEP goes to the existing centers, so the capacity to develop 

new content would be quite limited. Obviously, we try to do whatever we could working with private sector developers to come up 

with content, but it would be limited. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

And now I yield five minutes to the Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson yields her time to Mr. Peters from California. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I had a question about the health IT, information technology. There was a $3 million initiative that you refer to, and as 

I understand, this would expand on the existing efforts in health 

IT at NIST and would advance work to develop standards and testing for the meaningful use of electronic health records. And I know 

meaningful use is a term from the ACA with some meaning. You 

are ultimately going to want to require interoperability between 

different systems, and I wanted to sort of see if you could maybe 

elaborate on the current efforts in interoperability and how the 

new initiative would help the healthcare professionals and hospitals as they are preparing to answer a lot of the open questions 

about how to implement the ACA. 
34 

Dr. GALLAGHER. That is a great question and the NIST role has 

been to support the functioning of health information technology. 

And in the early phases, a lot of what our work was promoting the 

testing tools and validation tools that demonstrated meaningful 

use. And the idea was to drive the performance of these systems 

by making sure that they were put into practice by doctors and 

physicians. So showing that it could, you know, pull up prescription 

information and be disseminated back to the pharmacy and so 

forth. 

Increasingly, now, you are going from sort of stand-alone information technology to a very broad and diffuse system. So as the 

health IT program matures, interoperability across platforms is 

going to become a major driver, and that is the next phase of the 

health IT program. The request is to support the NIST effort to develop compliance tools and validation tools to test the code and 

function that industry is developing. It is actually not an augmentation of program. The NIST program to date has not received 

any base funding. It was actually fully supported by one-time Recovery Act funding that in fact expires the end of this year and a 

limited amount of reprogramming we were able to do from within 

the agency. 

Mr. PETERS. So—and just to follow up and to clarify, one of the 

things that is exciting and happening a lot in San Diego is the development of wireless health, digital health. The opportunity say, 

for instance, to monitor a person’s cardiac performance or their glucose levels from a remote location that might save money on things 

like office visits or emergency ambulance rides or emergency room 

stays. One of the things we are going to have to think about is how 

to make those systems mesh with these records systems. And I 

want to know kind of is that part of your effort or is that something you anticipate getting involved in? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. That is very much part of the effort both from 

the functionality and from the security and privacy aspects that 

are going to come with that kind of technology. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. Well, I wish you the best. It is a lot of opportunity. I believe you can only cut doctors’ pay so much and raise 

taxes so much. A lot of what innovation can provide is new and 

cheaper ways to accomplish the goals that really will reduce the 

healthcare costs and that will depend a lot, as you know, on the 

ability of NIST to set standards that everyone can work off of as 

they innovate. So I appreciate your being here today. Thank you. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. 

Chairman MASSIE. I am now honored to recognize for five minutes the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Gallagher, first of all, thank you for your commitment to 

public service, which has extended over many years. That is rare, 

but admirable. 

I have a couple questions. The first is in Fiscal Year 2013 and 

in Fiscal Year 2014 how much money do you anticipate will be 

spent by NIST in implementing the Administration’s February Executive Order on cybersecurity? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So that is—we haven’t scraped up a separate 

budget account to track that closely—— 
35 

Chairman SMITH. Actually, that was my next question. What accounts is it going to come from? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. It is going to come—it is largely leveraging our 

work in our cybersecurity division. 

Chairman SMITH. If you don’t know 2014, what about 2013? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Roughly for this year—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. —which is sort of the primary scope of the Exec- utive Order, it is about $3 million that we anticipate. That sounds 

amazingly small given the tasking that was in the Executive 

Order, but the magic sauce is that we really want industry to develop this framework. And so most of those costs are supporting 

the coordination and sort of pulling together all of the material 

coming in from all of these sectors and managing the discussions 

that will help pull the framework together. 

Chairman SMITH. So you are going to try to leverage that $3 million and increase it exponentially through the private sector? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. As far as we can. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Gosh, you are right. That seems an awfully small amount. What about 2014, about the same, more? What 

would you expect? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So I think that looking in the out-years I envision the framework that is being developed. It cannot be a one-time 

develop-and-stop. The technology we are talking about is too dynamic. What I really hope happens is something akin to Smart 

Grid where the—this—as we pull this together the first time, the 

private sector begins to continuously manage and fine-tune this 

framework. That will actually drive the NIST technical programs 

because that will result in questions about, you know, how do we 

address identity management or roots of trust or better cryptography or other forms of technical solutions that that industry will 

need. 

And that is actually reflected in our ’14 request that $8 million 

of R&D base is designed to support what is becoming a very 

stretched out technical capability at NIST. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Next question, different subject. In regard to these new manufacturing centers, what metrics would you recommend that we use to 

evaluate these programs? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, the ultimate goal is a long-term one. It 

should increase the rate of innovation by the participating companies. This is about creating the modern equivalent of Bell Labs. 

You are trying to get a group of companies collaborating and sharing and leveraging each other to do what used to be done by large, 

vertically integrated monopolies. And you should see the same kind 

of innovation. In the short-term, what I hope you see is this 

incentivizes an increase in private sector investment in R&D. It 

pulls their investments upstream. 

Chairman SMITH. But both regarding current programs and, as 

you said, the proposed augmented programs, how do you evaluate 

them? Are there any specific metrics, any specific data we ought to 

be looking for to gauge their success? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I mean so, you know, measuring technology’s success is always a tricky thing. We have economists who 
36 

try to study that because the ideas diffuse into different products. 

You can certainly look at rates of IP generation and patent filings. 

You can look at new company startups that are going to happen 

as a result of this. In some cases, one of the problems is that some 

of the most exciting things a company pulls in and they don’t tell 

us about—in fact, sometimes we know the most exciting work is 

when they stop telling us about it—and in some cases you don’t see 

the payoff until quite a bit later as you see new products and services going in. 

So I think from a measurement perspective, how do we measure 

success, it is going to have be a layered set of things: some early 

indicators that indicate that this is starting to be pulled together 

and then we are going to have to continue to monitor this for a 

long time to see some of the economic payoffs in markets and new 

products and services and so forth. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Gallagher. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now yield five minutes to Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Gallagher, in your testimony you mentioned the need to support the manufacture of emerging technologies, including biomanufacturing. Specifically, you discussed efforts that could help create 

new manufacturing paradigms for using cells as factories for fuel, 

pharmaceuticals and specialty chemicals. These efforts align with 

the White House’s report, the National Bioeconomy Blueprint, a 

strategic plan to help the Nation realize the potential of the economic activity fueled by research and innovation in the bioeconomy. 

Would you please describe your efforts in biomanufacturing and 

how these activities will help the Nation attain the benefits of the 

bioeconomy? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. I would be happy to. Of course, you 

know, the explosion of understanding in bioscience is probably the 

most dramatic scientific development in my career. It has been a 

game-changer. The NIST role is very simple. It is our core mission. 

It is to advance the measurement science in biotechnology and particularly the measurement science that controls our—the adoption 

of this technology. And what I think it means and what the focus 

of our request is really in two areas. One is the production using 

biology to produce things is becoming mainstream. It is becoming 

a manufacturing process. And we do not have the process measurement tools to control and reproducibly, repeatedly, reliably produce 

high-quality materials. If we can’t do that, these things will never 

achieve the scale and the cost reduction of market to make it a viable production technology. 

And the second area where measurements are playing a major 

role is in supporting the demonstration of safety and efficacy. And 

you see this no more clearly in the pharmaceutical area where the 

pace of technological development, our ability to, let’s say, make a 

new vaccine is much, much faster now than our capacity to regulate it and demonstrate its safety and efficacy. And you see this increasing mismatch. And one of the things we talk about very closely with FDA and others is can we provide a rich measurement so 
37 

we can understand the biomolecule that we have produced in a way 

that would really facilitate a rapid and effective, you know, protection of the public as well. 

So both in the regulation and the production we think our—the 

maturity of measurement science is one of the limiting steps, and 

that would be the area that NIST would focus in. 

Ms. WILSON. That is fantastic. My other question, as part of the 

budget request, you are proposing $20 million for the creation of 

four NIST Centers of Excellence. The budget request describes 

these centers as ‘‘interdisciplinary environments where NIST academic and industry researchers will collaborate on basic and applied research focused on innovations and measurement science 

and new technology development.’’ Certainly, the success of NIST 

current research collaborations with the University of Colorado and 

the University of Maryland is in some part due to the presence of 

NIST and its scientists in these geographic locations. How is NIST 

planning to ensure the active and full participation of its scientists 

in these proposed Centers of Excellence? And what research areas 

do you envision these centers focusing on? And do you plan to put 

one in Miami? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. We hope Miami submits a great proposal. So we 

would like to do this competitively, and the Centers of Excellence 

program is very simple. It is designed to facilitate a partnership to 

expand the effectiveness of NIST’s mission. It is kind of a selfish 

initiative. This is about making NIST do its core mission better. 

The example you gave about JILA at the University of Colorado is 

a great example. For more than 50 years, we have been able to sustain with NIST staff working right alongside top academic researchers a state-of-the-art effort in research that is essential to 

our core mission: producing better clocks and understanding time 

and some of the quantum measurement. It has allowed us to be at 

the forefront. 

And I don’t think that example is unique. I think that there are 

many cases where rather than NIST simply going into its labs and 

doing it by itself, by working with others in partnership, we actually achieve our mission better. 

There is a lot of competition for what the area—the best area can 

be and so we are going to both compete this internally to identify 

the areas of—that offer the most, and that is how we involve our 

scientists—offer the most engagement and benefit. It could be biosciences, which is a big growth area for NIST. It could be an environment where we are working much closer with industry. And 

then once we have identified the technical area where we think we 

get the most mission impact, we are going to do an open competition where universities and other stakeholders can propose and 

give us their ideas for how a partnership would be most effective. 

And so we certainly hope Miami is going to be a participant or any 

other area be a participant in that competitive process. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. That is exciting. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you very much. 

I now yield five minutes to Mr. Hultgren from Illinois. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much for being here. A couple questions. 
38 

First, in the Fiscal Year 2014 NIST budget request, more than 

half of the proposed increase in funding would be focused on advanced manufacturing efforts. While recognizing manufacturing is 

very important to our Nation and economy, a lot of this new funding is focused in areas of technology and knowledge transfer. I am 

concerned that the core long-term research that supports manufacturing is going to be left behind as the Institute advances initiatives that provide more short-term band aids. When the infusion of 

cash has gone out the door, are you confident we will have not lost 

focus on longer-term needs in manufacturing? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So I may not understand the concern because 

the majority of the NIST funding is in fact in long-term areas. It 

is core research in measurement science that is related to the highest growth, in other words, the newest technology areas in advanced manufacturing. So it is enhancing our capacity to support 

the metrology or measurement science needed for nano—production 

of nano materials or biomaterials or for some of the standards support we are going to have to do for some of the advanced system 

integration and smart manufacturing and smart—so, you know, it 

looks like a big refocus for NIST into manufacturing, but remember, NIST, since 1901, has sort of been industry’s national lab. 

We—the truth of the matter is almost all of NIST has been related 

to manufacturing in one way or another for its entire history. 

And so this program is really focused on developing the core capacity in our laboratory program where very much part of our core 

mission so that we can support what is the fastest-moving areas of 

industry. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, my—I am a broken record here. Fighting for 

research and fighting for what only we can do and what other— 

private sector can’t do, the free market can’t do and where I feel 

like when we have got extra resources, I think it is great to get 

more into the application and into the applying. My focus is to 

make sure that we are not taking money away that should go to 

research when that money is so limited. 

Let me go on to another question. How does NIST balance shortterm, low-risk, low-reward research projects versus long-term, 

high-risk, high-reward research projects when making funding decisions? And just kind of a follow-up on that—or a couple of followups—how does NIST determine the proportion of basic research 

versus applied research projects when allocating funding? And I 

wonder is there a balance that, as Director, you look to maintain 

across your activities between the more fundamental versus the 

more applied type of work that NIST funds? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So the lens I always use for those decisions is 

our mission effectiveness. And that tends to mean that a large proportion of our work is actually in very basic areas. And that actually touches on the point you raised, which is uniqueness. That is 

the role that we can play that others will not play. Industry is 

taken to very short-cycle research. So it would not make sense for 

NIST to be heavily involved in very applied research or development. 

The mix I think comes from relevance. It wouldn’t do any good 

for NIST to have this beautiful academic research that was irrelevant to application and industry, and so the balance tends to come 
39 

exclusively from making sure we have the capacity to do that cutting-edge research, to stay ahead of the measurement science or 

this very core NIST mission, but also have an understanding of 

how that measurement science is applied in real world technology 

so that the translation is effective. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My encouragement in that is just to—I know 

that is an always-changing balance, but especially when resources 

are tight to have it focused on that basic research and research 

again that no one else can do. And then the applied research is always an option when there is additional resources, but we have got 

to make sure that we have got that core mission in place. 

Let me move on still. My time is limited. But wondering what 

NIST is doing to measure and evaluate the economic impact of its 

programs. 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So we have a program that does—in fact has developed sort of one of the leading methodologies for looking at economic impact of its work. As you—as I was pointing out earlier, 

that is a complicated business, but we will routinely take several 

of our programs a year and then do a retrospective economic analysis to ascertain the economic payoff, the economic benefit. And of 

course with such a diverse agency, these tend to be rather diverse 

studies in terms of how we do that. 

We are—the other way we do that is by industry validation. The 

Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, our leading advisory 

committee, is made up predominantly of chief technology officers at 

that level from companies, and we routinely ask them to make sure 

that our work is relevant to them. That is not economic study but 

it is a relevancy assessment if you will. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. I just have a few seconds left, but if I can, 

I got here a little bit late and just would love to get your thoughts. 

Brain science is something very interesting to me, very concerning 

to me of some of the diseases. How do we improve the understanding and treatment of autism, Alzheimer’s, and other neurological disorders? And what role do you see NIST playing in standards and technology surrounding various drug compounds or other 

therapeutics that could help us improve people’s lives in the long 

run? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Well, I appreciate the question. It—you know, 

and this is going to sound like a broken record, too. I think our role 

is actually in the measurement science piece of this. In fact, we are 

already getting a lot of demand from both universities, companies, 

and other Federal agencies to support some of the very difficult, 

very challenging measurements associated with neurological disease, understanding brain function, measuring brain function, 

measuring misfolded proteins, understanding—these are areas 

that—where the—our ability to measure, particularly measure in 

living beings and not under laboratory conditions is very immature. 

And so that is one of the areas—that is why biosciences has come 

up as an area where we have really got to come up to speed in supporting those advances in measurement science. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I agree. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. I yield 

back. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you very much for your questions. 
40 

We are going to do at least a third round of questions and I will 

begin by yielding myself another five minutes. 

My first question would be—and I want to ask a series of short 

questions and I don’t require anything but short answers. When 

you talk about cybersecurity funding at NIST, what portion of that 

should be public domain and what portion of that should be classified? And is NIST really the right place to be doing cybersecurity 

research or should we be doing it in a more closed environment? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So NIST is the place where you would want to 

put the non-classified work. You know, you have got to have capability to develop—the capability to protect in commercial technology. So if all the research is classified, then the translation to 

practice and putting it into industry when it is global markets is 

actually hampered. And so the NIST role is almost all unclassified. 

Chairman MASSIE. Okay. That is a great lead-in to my next question, which is it seems like the rates of technology transfer are 

higher, and I am asking this question because this might be one 

of the metrics of success at an institution such as NIST. But it 

seems like the rates of technology transfer are higher at universities, particularly research universities like MIT or Caltech than 

they are at NIST. And what could you do to improve the rates of 

technology transfer at NIST? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. So we are actually very actively trying to increase rates of technology transfer at NIST by targeting our SBIR 

program, making it more focused, by promoting tech transfer by 

our research staff and making sure that this is a valued activity. 

But I want to emphasize, you know, the role of NIST is to drive 

things into practice, but it will not look the same way that measuring entrepreneurial startups would look for a major university. 

We don’t—you know, our role is not to have Federal employees go 

off and start companies and then come back and do some of those 

activities. 

So what we are trying to do is work with all the—in fact, all of 

the Federal agencies to broaden and develop a more nuanced understanding of tech transfer means. And so NIST has been working 

with OMB and other Federal agencies to—and we would like to actually work with you on that as well. 

Chairman MASSIE. So you keep leading me to my next question. 

You must be reading my mind or you have a camera up here. My 

next question concerns SBIRs and I have some experience in my 

private background of working with SBIRs. And my question to you 

would be, as Congress here, we sort of dictate how much extramural and intramural spending that you can do, and as far as the 

SBIR program goes, I would like your personal opinion on would 

you rather see more funding toward SBIRs and less on your, for 

instance, intramural programs? Or would you rather see it the 

other way around? Or have we, as Congressmen, achieved the perfect balance in giving you that money and dictating how much is 

intramural and extramural? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. That is one of those eye-of-the-beholder questions. It depends. So clearly, we like the—and NIST is predominantly intramural, and our SBIR program is consequently quite 

small. I think we are fairly close to the right answer. I haven’t had 

a major desire to see it move one way or the other. I am of the be-
41 

lief, though, that we can do much more to make sure that the SBIR 

funds that are allocated are much more effective. And that has 

been the big improvement we have been focused on is you need to 

step back and strategically look at that investment. It is quite 

unique. It is one of the only investments we make into innovative, 

small, startup companies. And I would like to see it punch its 

weight more. 

Chairman MASSIE. And my final question in this series is NIST 

has impressive rates of employee and staff retention. It seems like 

when people go to NIST, they like it and they don’t leave. And that 

allows you to do long-term projects that would be harder to do with 

a lot of turnover. On the other hand, university—the university 

model is that you kick them out of the nest and you don’t want too 

much retention because then you kind of reach this stasis. So how 

do you avoid getting into a rut at NIST when you have such great 

employee and staff retention? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes, you are exactly right. For an agency that 

has to have long-term research roots, the stability is in fact very 

desirable. It is actually quite competitive, and so any other 

science—you also want churn. You want this lifeblood of new, 

young people coming right out of school with fresh ideas. And so 

it has been very important for us to have a very aggressive postdoc 

program, to have guest researcher programs, and to have this fluidity of new ideas and engagement while having a core cadre of 

senior scientists that in fact are there. That is a perpetual management challenge that we manage all the time but it is very important. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you, Dr. Gallagher. 

And I yield five minutes to Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chair Massie. 

Dr. Gallagher, one of my colleagues expressed concern about 

‘‘mission creep’’ at NIST. However, as I recall the mission of NIST, 

it 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. I 

believe that this is a broad mission and I don’t believe the budget 

request is pushing NIST outside of its core competencies. Would 

you agree with that? And do you believe the budget request reflects 

the mission of NIST? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Yes, I would in the strongest possible terms 

agree. I think NIST has been true to its mission. Its mission is 

broad. It includes not only core basic research and measurement 

science, but supports the small to mid-sized manufacturers, includes the primary responsibility for tech transfer regulation in the 

United States. I think—and we hold true to that. The challenge we 

always face is given that broad mission with limited resources, how 

do you set effective priorities? But I believe wholeheartedly that 

one of the secrets of success to NIST, you know, now well over 110 

years old, is this: it has been true to its mission from the beginning. 

Ms. WILSON. Okay. Just another question. The release of the National Research Council’s Forensic Science Report in 2009, which 

concluded that forensic system—science system in this country has 

serious problems served as a wakeup call and has prompted discus-
42 

sions throughout the Federal Government and the stakeholder 

community about how best to improve forensic science research and 

practice. I am pleased that the budget request highlights your efforts in forensic science. Can you tell us more about what activities 

NIST intends to undertake related to forensic science in Fiscal 

Year 2014 and how NIST is partnering with the Department of 

Justice to improve forensic science? 

Dr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. I—you know, NIST—it is interesting. NIST has actually been involved with forensic science for 

most of its history. NIST scientists actually predated the establishment of the FBI crime lab and helped work to establish it. NIST 

worked on the Lindenberg case. So we have actually had a long 

record here, and the role in fact is our core mission. It is to provide 

the measurement science underpinnings for forensic measurement. 

The best example today is DNA, which was held up by the Academy as one of the very effective types of forensic measurement. The 

NIST staff work—you know, had worked with the community to 

define the core measurement methodology and sort of the protocols 

and standards that are used by DNA crime labs, the—and make 

that technique so reliable. 

So realizing that that was a model, the announcement we have 

just had, the working arrangement between NIST and the Department of Justice to strengthen that. And basically, it will be formalized through a joint commission that will be co-chaired by the Justice Department and NIST. It will bring together a broad community of practice from scientists and laboratory officials to criminal 

prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. And the goal is twofold. 

At NIST, our responsibility is to look at areas where the measurement science underpinnings of a forensic technique are not well established. And those tend to be what you might consider a low-tech 

measurement. How do you compare—what is the reliability of comparing a tire imprint left at a crime scene with a tire and how 

unique is that measurement and how degraded before you can’t say 

anything about it? It could be in blood serum, it could be in chemical measurements and so forth. 

So our job will be to do the measurement science and then work 

with the community of practice to turn that into the types of protocols, standards for laboratories, maybe certification requirements 

for the expertise of the personnel that do those measurements. And 

those can be adopted at the state and local level and then the Justice Department will decide whether they will be applicable for 

Federal crime labs under their jurisdiction. 

Ms. WILSON. Just let me—I just need to make a comment. Every 

second, this is so exciting. And I know that the people who work 

with you and collaborate with you and the people at NIST and— 

have the most exciting lives in all of this research. This is just 

amazing. And thank you so much for all that you do for this Nation. Thank you. 

Chairman MASSIE. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. 

I would like to thank Dr. Gallagher for his valuable testimony 

today and for having so much stamina undergoing three rounds of 

questioning being the only witness here before us. I thought your 

answers were excellent. And I also want to thank you and your 

staff for hosting our visit to NIST a couple weeks ago. 
43 

I would like to thank the Members for their questions and remind them that the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

Dr. Gallagher is excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ