[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE NIST LABORATORIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-554 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota VACANCY
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Technology
HON. THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky, Chair
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona SCOTT PETERS, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DEREK KILMER, Washington
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, March 20, 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.................................. 7
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........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Witnesses:
Dr. Willie E. May, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs,
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 14
Dr. Ross B. Corotis, Denver Business Challenge Professor,
University of Colorado at Boulder; Member, Laboratory
Assessments Board, National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Discussion....................................................... 34
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Willie E. May, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs,
National Institute of Standards and Technology................. 46
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
2012 Annual Report Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology
(VCAT) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted by Representative Thomas
Massie, Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 50
Material Measurement Laboratory: An Overview of Our Programs in
Biology, Chemistry and Materials Science, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce,
submitted by Dr. Willie E. May, Associate Director for
Laboratory Programs, National Institute of Standards and
Technology..................................................... 67
EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NIST LABORATORIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas
Massie [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.005
Chairman Massie. The Subcommittee on Technology will come
to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing, entitled
``Examining the Effectiveness of NIST Laboratories.'' In front
of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today's
witness panel. I recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
This afternoon's hearing is being held to examine the
effectiveness of the laboratory programs at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. This hearing will help
inform the Committee as it considers reauthorization of NIST
and its laboratories later this year.
Measurement science conducted at NIST laboratories
contributes to industrial competitiveness by buttressing the
technical infrastructure for advancements in nanotechnology,
global positioning systems, materials sciences, cybersecurity,
health information technology, and a variety of other fields.
Research conducted at NIST laboratories has been lauded by
independent outside review panels as being among the best in
the world. Indeed, NIST researchers have been awarded four
Nobel prizes in physics in the last 15 years.
As the Committee considers reauthorization of NIST, it is
important for Committee Members to know whether the research
conducted at NIST laboratories is effective. It is also
important to understand how NIST prioritizes and coordinates
research projects, and how NIST balances its portfolio of
research between short-term, lower-risk, lower-reward projects
and long-term, higher-risk, higher reward projects.
The National Academies have recently conducted assessments
of three NIST laboratories and have conducted a cross-cutting
review of manufacturing-related programs at NIST. Dr. Corotis
will be summarizing the findings of these recent reviews in his
testimony today. While these reviews are mostly positive, they
have also identified areas for improvements. The Subcommittee
looks forward to exploring the Academies' recommendations this
afternoon.
America is currently more than $16 trillion in debt and is
running massive deficits on an annual basis. Congress's job is
to set priorities. One of the best things we as policy makers
can do to improve our economic competitiveness is to get our
fiscal house in order. Industry leaders are currently sitting
on large cash reserves. They will be reticent to invest that
money here in America until they see that the country is on a
sustainable path and a sustainable budget.
Just as it is important for our country to prioritize
spending decisions, it is also important for our research
agencies to do so. We look forward to understanding how NIST
can prioritize project decisions in a fiscally responsible
manner while contributing to U.S. innovation and
competitiveness.
I would like to extend my appreciation to each of our
witnesses, Dr. May and Dr. Corotis, for taking time today and
the effort to appear before us. We look forward to your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Massie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Thomas Massie
Good afternoon, I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing,
which is being held to examine the effectiveness of the laboratory
programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This
hearing will help inform the Committee as it considers reauthorization
of NIST and its laboratories later this year.
Measurement science conducted at NIST laboratories contributes to
industrial competitiveness by buttressing the technical infrastructure
for advancements in nanotechnology, global positioning systems,
materials sciences, cybersecurity, health information technology, and a
variety of other fields. Research conducted at NIST laboratories has
been lauded by independent outside review panels as being among the
best in the world. Indeed, NIST researchers have been awarded four
Nobel prizes in Physics in the last 15 years.
As the Committee considers reauthorization of NIST, it is important
for Committee Members to know whether the research conducted at NIST
laboratories is effective. It is also important to understand how NIST
prioritizes and coordinates research projects, and how NIST balances
its portfolio of research between short-term, lower-risk, lower-reward
projects and long-term, higher-risk, higher reward projects.
The National Academies have recently conducted assessments of three
NIST laboratories and have conducted a cross-cutting review of
manufacturing-related programs at NIST. Dr. Corotis will be summarizing
the findings of these recent reviews in his testimony today. While the
reviews are mostly positive, they have also identified areas for
improvements. The Subcommittee looks forward to exploring the
Academies' recommendations this afternoon.
America is currently more than $16 trillion in debt and is running
massive deficits on an annual basis. Congress's job is to set
priorities. One of the best things we as policy makers can do to
improve our economic competitiveness is to get our fiscal house in
order. Industry leaders are currently sitting on large cash reserves.
They will be reticent to invest that money here in America until they
see that the country is on a sustainable budget path.
Just as it is important for the country to prioritize spending
decisions, it is also important for our research agencies to do so. We
look forward to understanding how NIST can prioritize project decisions
in a fiscally responsible manner while contributing to US innovation
and competitiveness. I'd like to extend my appreciation to each of our
witnesses for taking the time and effort to appear before us today. We
look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Massie. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson, for an opening statement.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Massie. Thank you for
holding this hearing to examine the effectiveness of the
laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
It is essential that we learn more about important work
being conducted at NIST's laboratories, as this Subcommittee
looks to reauthorize the agency through the America COMPETES
Act. While I am so pleased to hear from our two witnesses this
afternoon, it is unfortunate that we do not have a member from
NIST's advisory committee, or VCAT, as it is commonly known,
testifying here today. I understand there were scheduling
conflicts, but having an oversight hearing without a witness
from the group specifically tasked by Congress to review and
make recommendation regarding NIST management and policy is
regrettable.
NIST is small in size, yet tremendous in impact. For more
than 100 years, it has promoted the competitiveness of U.S.
industry by advancing measurement, science, standards, and
technology. NIST has broaden technical expertise, as well as a
unique ability to bridge public and private sector work. The
America COMPETES Act of 2010 included the first major
reorganization of the agency in decades, streamlining NIST's
laboratories from ten labs to six. The purpose of the
reorganization was to create mission-focused laboratories that
were vertically integrated. In other words, a single lab would
be responsible for everything from basic research to the
delivery of products and services to its customers. VCAT
supported the reorganization and reviewed it positively,
including acknowledging the importance of the new position of
associate director for laboratory programs, a position held by
one of our esteemed witnesses, Dr. Willie May.
Since the reorganization is relatively new, it is important
that we continue to follow its progress and the activities of
the new laboratories. I look forward to hearing how the
reorganization is going from the witnesses.
I am also interested in hearing about NIST's cross-cutting
research efforts. Under this Administration, it has taken on a
prominent role in ensuring that American manufacturers remain
competitive in the global marketplace. Manufacturing in the
United States has changed from an industry losing jobs to an
industry adding jobs, and its activities have the potential to
continue that trend by helping manufacturers develop innovative
products and processes. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses about the manufacturing programs at NIST, and what,
if any, policies that would be recommended to help promote
these programs as the Subcommittee discusses reauthorizing
NIST.
Another cross-cutting research effort NIST is undertaking
is in the field of bioscience. To ensure that countless new
biological innovations can be transformed into useful products
and services, we need new measurement technologies and
standards. I am interested in hearing more about what NIST is
doing in this area from our witnesses today. Both these cross-
cutting research programs highlight the important work NIST is
doing to promote innovation, commercialization, and business
growth for our Nation.
In a time when we should be doing everything to ensure our
Nation's leadership position in innovation, we are talking
about cutting the budgets of agencies like NIST. The America
COMPETES Act put science agencies, including NIST, on a double
funding path so that the United States could maintain its
competitive edge, but unfortunately, these levels have not been
appropriated. Additionally, sequestration will have real
impacts on NIST, including the elimination of grants and
contracts, delayed or canceled equipment purchases, and
deferred repair and maintenance of NIST facilities. We need to
be making smart investments that will help our Nation's economy
grow. I hope we will focus on making those needed investments
when we reauthorize NIST.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to working with you and our colleagues to
ensure that NIST has what it needs to fulfill its important
mission.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Minority Member Frederica Wilson
Thank you, Chairman Massie for holding this hearing to examine the
effectiveness of the laboratory programs at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
Today's hearing provides us with the opportunity to review the
important work being conducted at NIST's laboratories as part of the
Subcommittee's efforts to reauthorize this agency through the America
COMPETES Act.
Although I am excited to hear from our two witnesses this
afternoon, I think it is unfortunate that we do not have a member from
NIST's advisory committee--or V-CAT as it is commonly known--testifying
here today. I understand there were scheduling conflicts, but having an
oversight hearing without a witness from the group specifically tasked
by Congress to review and make recommendations regarding NIST
management and policy is regrettable.
NIST is a relatively small agency, but 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.
The America COMPETES Act of 2010 included the first major
reorganization of the agency in decades, streamlining NIST's
laboratories from ten labs to six. The purpose of the reorganization
was to create mission-focused laboratories that were vertically
integrated so a single lab would be responsible for everything from
basic research to the delivery of products and services to its
customers.
VCAT supported the reorganization and reviewed it positively
including acknowledging the importance of the new position of Associate
Director for Laboratory Programs, a position held by one of our
witnesses, Dr. Willie May.
Since the reorganization is relatively new, it is important that we
continue to follow its progress and the activities of the new
laboratories. I look forward to hearing how the reorganization is going
from the witnesses.
In addition to learning more about the research and activities
happening in each of the six labs, I am interested in hearing about
NIST's cross-cutting research efforts.
Under this Administration, NIST has taken on a prominent role in
ensuring that American manufacturers remain competitive in the global
marketplace. Manufacturing in the United States has changed from an
industry losing jobs to an industry adding jobs. And NIST's activities
have the potential to continue that trend by helping manufacturers
develop innovative products and processes.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the
manufacturing programs at NIST and what--if any--policies they would
recommend to help promote those programs as the Subcommittee discusses
reauthorizing NIST.
Another cross-cutting research effort NIST is undertaking is in the
field of bioscience. During the last few decades, we have seen an
explosion in biological knowledge-knowledge that has the potential for
new cures and treatments for diseases. This exciting time brings along
with it new measurement challenges. To ensure those new biological
innovations, we need new measurement technologies and standards. I am
interested in hearing more about what NIST is doing in this area from
our witnesses today.
Both these cross-cutting research programs highlight the important
work NIST is doing to promote innovation, commercialization, and
business growth for our nation. At a time when we should be doing
everything to ensure our nation's leadership position in innovation, we
are talking about cutting the budgets of agencies like NIST. The
America COMPETES Act put science agencies, including NIST, on a double
funding path so that the United States could maintain its competitive
edge, but unfortunately those levels have not been appropriated.
Additionally, sequestration will have real impacts on NIST,
including the elimination of grants and contracts, delayed or canceled
equipment purchases, and deferred repair and maintenance of NIST
facilities. We need to be making smart investments that will help our
nation's economy grow. I hope we will focus on making those needed
investments when we reauthorize NIST.
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
what it needs to fulfill its important mission.
Chairman Massie. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to add the NIST
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology's 2012 annual report
to the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Massie. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, their statements will be added
to the record at this point.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Willie May, the Associate Director for
Laboratory Programs. In this capacity, Dr. May provides the
oversight and direction of NIST's six laboratory programs.
Our second witness is Dr. Ross Corotis, the Denver Business
Challenge Professor and the Department of Civil, Environmental,
and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado at
Boulder. He also serves as Chair of the National Research
Council Committee on Assessment of NIST's Technical Programs.
Dr. Corotis received a doctoral degree in civil engineering
with a concentration in structural mechanics from my alma
mater, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize Dr. May to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIE E. MAY,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR LABORATORY PROGRAMS,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. May. Chairman Massie, Ranking Member Wilson, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. As stated earlier, I am Willie May, Associate
Director for Laboratory Programs at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Since 1901, NIST, as a non-regulatory agency in the
Department of Commerce, has maintained the U.S. national
standards for measurement. Our 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. In
carrying out this Congressionally mandated role rooted in the
U.S. Constitution, we have been supplying the measurement
standards and other tools to help industry innovate and compete
for over 100 years. Since our inception, in addition to
maintaining the more traditional national standards of
measurement, we have focused a significant portion of our
research and measurement service activities on addressing
contemporary societal needs. We have worked with industry,
other government agencies, and the scientific community to
ensure that as new measurement standards and technology needs
develop, our laboratory program evolves to meet them.
The work of the NIST laboratory program focuses on three
primary areas: driving innovation through measurement science,
accelerating the adoption and deployment of advanced technology
solutions, and providing unique world class, cutting edge
research facilities for use by industry and academia.
So how is this accomplished? In three ways, actually.
First, we maintain an excellent program in scientific
discovery. As stated rather eloquently by one of our former
directors, Alan Aston, back in the 1950s, while the development
and maintenance of standards provides the first and primary
reason for our existence, we recognize that our standards work
must keep abreast with expansion of the frontiers of science.
In that regard, as stated previously, in the last 15 years NIST
researchers have been awarded four Nobel Prizes in physics.
Additionally, we have got--our staff have received the Kyoto
Prize in material science, which is essentially the Nobel for
material science, two National Science awards, a MacArthur
Award, the so-called genius award, the L'Oreal Enesco Women and
Science Award, and over 100 other national scientific awards
and prizes.
Because of our stature in the community, more than 2,800
collaborating researchers come to NIST each year to work
alongside our approximately 1,500 federal scientists and
engineers in delivering our mission, giving us a great
leveraging effect.
We also address key national priorities. Our capabilities
and our technical know-how have us poised to support a number
of diverse emerging areas that include advanced manufacturing,
additive, bio, nano, advanced materials, smart manufacturing
and cyber physical systems, forensics that is providing in
science debates for its use in the criminal justice system, and
energy efficiency and sustainability.
Two of our best-known current examples of how our expertise
in measurements and standard and our expertise in supporting
industry has put us in a favorable position to accelerate the
transition from world class research to applied solutions and
new technology adoption, our work on the smart grid and our
work with cybersecurity. With respect to the latter, we
recently established a National Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence where we bring research done in our laboratories to
the private sector so that they can work with us to adopt and
implement our standards into their platforms, and supporting
the Obama Administration's National Strategy for Trusted
Identities in Cyberspace, so-called NSTIC.
We also provide the measurement standards and technology to
address our stakeholder needs. This broad research base depends
on our delivery of our Standard Reference Materials used to
calibrate and validate measurement systems, calibration
services where energy sends devices to us to calibrate and
Standard Reference Data products. And again, the combination of
the three, industry uses these to ensure the quality of their
measurements and--development of new products and services.
Looking to the future, we are working to develop so-called
NIST on a chip. This will be a suite of portable, highly
precise devices that will provide customers with in-place
precision measurements and standards needed to keep pace with
the ever-accelerating product development cycle. They won't
have to then send devices to us to calibrate, which takes time
and can be costly. These calibrations will be built into the
devices that they use.
In addition, NIST provides industry, academia, and other
government agencies with unique user facilities and the
accompanying technical expertise that supports innovation in
material science, nanotechnology, and other emerging technology
areas. Our Center for Neutron Research provides neutron-based
measurement capabilities to U.S. researchers from the private
sector through providing them access to 30 very unique
measurement tools on a merit basis. Our Center for Nanoskill
Science and Technology reduces barriers to innovation by
providing industry, academia, and other government agencies
access to world-class nanoscale measurement and fabrication
tools, methods, and technology.
In the few years since its inception, the number of our
research participants has grown from zero to more than 1,600.
We are currently serving close to 250 different companies in
that facility.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the NIST laboratories play a
unique role in our Nation's research and technology development
enterprise. We sit at the nexus of science and industry,
conducting cutting edge world-class measurement science in
developing standards that allow industry to innovate and
compete successfully in the global economy. I am aware that I
have probably not addressed many of the questions that you
asked in your opening statement, so certainly thank you for
inviting me to testify today, and since time did not permit me
to elaborate----
Chairman Massie. We will have plenty of questions.
Dr. May. Okay.
Chairman Massie. That is a wonderful opening statement.
Dr. May. I would be happy to address any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. May follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.015
Chairman Massie. Okay, thank you, Dr. May.
I now recognize Dr. Corotis for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROSS B. COROTIS,
DENVER BUSINESS CHALLENGE PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER;
MEMBER, LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD,
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Dr. Corotis. Chairman Massie, Ranking Member Wilson, and
Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to address you
today and comment regarding the quality of the NIST
laboratories.
As stated, I am Dr. Ross B. Corotis, Chair of the NRC
Committee on NIST Technical Programs, an elected member of the
National Academy of Engineering, and an endowed professor at
the University of Colorado in Boulder.
As you know, Congress mandates the NIST Visiting Committee
on Advanced Technology, VCAT, focusing primarily on the NIST
portfolio and asking, ``is NIST doing the right things?'' VCAT
members are selected by NIST. The NRC committee, on the other
hand, is voluntarily engaged by NIST and responsibility for its
membership, activities, and reports lies completely with the
National Academies. The NRC assessment of NIST laboratories has
been provided since 1959, and basically addresses the question,
``is NIST doing things right?'' It operates with separate
panels of technical experts for each laboratory and center
assessed, and has no interaction or reporting relationship with
VCAT.
Eight years ago, NIST replaced the NRC annual laboratory
reviews with biennial ones, and eliminated the overall summary
report that identified findings spanning the separate
laboratories. About a year ago, NIST asked the NRC to assess
the assessment process itself. This study concluded that the
peer assessment of quality conducted by the NRC was a crucial
and vital part of the overall assessment strategy. Indeed, the
report concludes that both the VCAT and NRC aspects of
assessment are critical. The report develops guidelines for
assessment in three broad areas: management, the quality of
scientific and technical work, and relevance and impact. NIST
fulfills a unique nexus mission, promoting private industry
competing in a world market. The following statement from a
Committee report of a few years ago remains valid today. ``NIST
carries out in a superb fashion an absolutely vital role in
supporting, as well as facilitating, the further development of
the technological base of the U.S. economy. The personnel and
scientific programs of its measurement and standards
laboratories are among the best in the world.''
I will quote briefly on the three laboratories mentioned
from the 2010 and 2011 reports. ``Within the United States,
there is no other national laboratory or facility that focuses
on the missions of the NIST physics laboratory, and there is no
other laboratory worldwide that has had the successes in
physics that this laboratory has achieved over the past two
decades.'' There has been no assessment, however, of the new
Physical Measurements Laboratory since it was formed in 2010.
Another quote--``The information technology laboratory's
special publication series provides guidelines that are
frequently adopted voluntarily in private sector procurements
and practices.'' And another, ``The Center for Nanoscale
Science and Technology founded in May 2007, is maturing
impressively as a state-of-the-art nanoscience and
nanotechnology center of excellence, aligned with the overall
mission of NIST.'' All of the CNST facilities are among the
best in the world, and in many cases, they are unique.
We are all aware of exceptional capabilities NIST
demonstrated after the events of September 11, 2001. Their two-
volume CD on the World Trade Center events is the
authoritatively detailed account of exactly what happened to
the buildings that day. The establishment by Congress of NIST
as the home for the National Construction Safety Team Act is
indicative of the vital and essential role NIST fills in our
country.
Now, addressing the issue of whether NIST could increase
its effectiveness in promoting U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness, I can only note historical challenges in
managing cross-cutting programs. The recent review mentioned of
manufacturing related programs provided a welcome and promising
outcome, and it would be interesting to see whether the
expanding biosciences program as mentioned is also following a
sustainable trajectory.
And finally, my recommendations to the Committee are to
authorize NIST again at the fullest funding possible, and to
encourage NIST to avail itself of the continued benefits of the
NRC assessments, including 1) performing cross-cutting reviews
as well as laboratory reviews; 2) reinstating the practice of
examining findings from individual reviews to create a summary
report; and finally 3) reestablishing and maintaining a formal,
regular interaction between the NRC and the VCAT teams.
Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity to share with
you today the findings of the NRC assessment process for NIST,
and I would be happy to take the Subcommittee's questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Corotis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.023
Chairman Massie. Thank you, Dr. Corotis, thank you, Dr.
May. This is a very important meeting today. I appreciate that
Members have come here. We have a vote that is now being called
on the Floor of the House. It is very important that we do ask
questions, though, and so as soon as these votes are over we
will return.
At this point, the Committee will recess, subject to the
call of the Chair. Without objection, so ordered. Committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Massie. The Subcommittee will come back to order.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony, reminding Members
that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes.
The Chair would, at this point, open the round of
questions. At this point, I am going to recognize Mr. Hultgren
for five minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Hultgren. Chairman, thank you so much, and thank you
for the courtesy of allowing me to jump ahead a little bit
here. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you both for being here. I apologize for the busy day
here on the Hill. There are a lot of different things going on,
as you all know, but I appreciate your time and your testimony
very, very much.
I do want to address the first question to Dr. May. In
2012, the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology annual
report recommends that NIST provide more clarity and depth in
strategic planning. Can you tell us what steps the laboratory
programs are taking to improve strategic planning and
coordination?
Dr. May. Well certainly. Our formal strategic planning
process is a work in progress, and I would just like to
reiterate that the broad mission that we have and the academic
environment that we live in, with multiple stakeholders,
requires us to really look at strategic planning in a way that
most companies cannot. Essentially, what we have done is--as
stated in the VCAT report--is try to capture sort of what we
have always done in a rather ad hoc manner; that is, look at
our planning first through the lens of national priorities.
These are usually short-term needs, and in addition to being
poised to address these current needs, we also need to look at
building capacity to address future problems.
So addressing the national needs is sort of a top down
process, if you will, and then looking at capacity building is
more of a bottoms up with our research staff there involved
with their research community. They have counterparts in
industry, other government agencies, and they bring all that
intelligence back to us to determine what type of technical
capabilities do we need five, 10 years out, and that begins to
drive our recruitment processes to make sure we have the right
staff, also to make sure we have the right physical facilities
to address needs into the future.
The other lens that we look through that we probably had
not paid as much attention to as we maybe could have is sort of
how are we looking at aggressing improved internal operations?
So we essentially look at it three ways. The shorter term
addressing national needs, essentially the here and now,
looking at building the capacity to address issues that we
foresee coming up in the future, and then looking at changes
that we can make to be more efficient custodians of the
Nation's resources by improving our internal operations.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Well, thank you. I may have some follow
up, if that is okay, just for some more detail, if we can
follow up in writing.
But I want to switch gears just with the couple of minutes
that I have left, Dr. May. Brain science and medical treatment
are very important to me. More and more American families are
finding that their kids are being diagnosed with autism. Their
parents are being diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I wonder what
some of the options are for NIST to improve the environment for
research into these afflictions or development of therapeutics
to threat them?
Dr. May. Well, as you perhaps know, historically NIST has
been a physical sciences and engineering laboratory. Certainly
over the last decade, we have recognized the importance of
expanding into the biological sciences. In fact, I had the
responsibility of developing the organizational and strategic
plan for our biosciences program. I won't say that we are
looking at that issue in general, but we are certainly
positioning ourselves to address issues in the biosciences.
That particular issue is not on our radar screen yet, but
certainly if there is a pull from the biomedical community to
identify that as a top priority, we certainly are becoming
poised with the right skills and talents to address issues
looking at various types of diseases. Right now, primarily our
attention is focused on looking at measurement and standards to
address genetic diseases and looking at biomanufacturing are
our two focus areas. But certainly, we are open to looking at
areas such as the one you mentioned.
Mr. Hultgren. Real quickly, and I only have a few seconds
left, but I wonder how about NIST's work with stakeholders and
how we on the Committee here can improve the research and
development environment through NIST?
Dr. May. I guess I didn't quite understand. Can you repeat
that, please?
Mr. Hultgren. Yeah. You know, just wondering with NIST's
work with stakeholders and how we on the Committee can insist
in improving an R&D environment at NIST, so commitment to
research and development. As you mentioned, it is difficult to
have very specific--you know what? I see my time is expired. I
will follow up with you if we have further questions on that,
if that is all right. I just respect the Chairman for deferring
to me, so I am going to yield back. I thank the Chairman so
much, and we will follow up, if that is okay, with some more--
--
Dr. May. I would be happy to.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you so much. Again, thank you both for
being here.
Chairman Massie. I now recognize Ranking Member, Ms.
Wilson, for five minutes.
Ms. Wilson. Wow. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to both of you for being here today, and being cognizant
of our little schedules, going to vote and coming back. We
appreciate it.
This question is--my first question is for you, Dr. May.
Bioscience is of particular interest to me, because Florida
International University, which is in my district, is
partnering with public and private universities, state
colleges, and economic development councils to leverage
existing regional life science assets in that area of Miami-
Dade County. In your testimony, you mention how NIST is ideally
positioned to work with industry and federal regulatory
agencies to develop innovation solutions to biological
measurement challenges. NIST has developed a strategic plan for
its bioscience activities. Could you please give us an update
on that strategic plan and a review of bioscience related
research activities being conducted at NIST currently?
Dr. May. Okay. I will give you a very, very high level
overview, because to be honest with you, since I moved to my
current job I am not as aware of what is going every day in the
Material Measurement Laboratory where most of our bioscience
related research is going. But back to the strategic plan, I
will be happy to send you a copy. The plan that we have, we
conducted an outreach activity a few years back where we looked
at globally the measurement and standards barriers to
innovation in the biosciences. So we looked at this, what are
the issues, period. And then from that, we selected a number of
areas that NIST would begin to focus on immediately. One of
those was providing the measurement on depending to improve the
development and regulatory approval of biologic drugs. But if
you look at the main pillars of our bioscience program, it is
in the area of providing better measurement and standards to
support diagnostics, medical diagnostics. The main emphasis now
is on genetic diseases. It is to improve the quality of medical
imaging, because oftentimes when you have a medical image, you
go to one doctor, then you go to another to get a second
opinion, and when you really think about it, the truth in that
image hasn't changed, it is just an interpretation. So we are
trying to put more science in medical imaging so that devices
from different manufacturers essentially yield the same truth.
And then the other area is working to promote, as I said
earlier, the more effective--efficient development and
regulatory approval with the FDA of biosimilars of biologic
drugs. So those are the three focus areas for our program in
bio.
Ms. Wilson. Dr. Corotis, since the bioscience related
research activities at NIST are not housed in one laboratory,
do you think a review of the bioscience programs by a group
like the National Academies is needed?
Dr. Corotis. Well, I think it would definitely be
beneficial. As I had mentioned in my remarks, the cross-cutting
programs are always a challenge in any organization, including
NIST, and since the biosciences have been ramping up rapidly
over the last few years, are a vital contribution that NIST is
making and because, as you point out, they are cross-
disciplinary across the NIST laboratories, it would seem to me,
speaking as an individual, that that would be an ideal area for
cross-cutting review. The NRC has done several cross-cutting
reviews, manufacturing initiative and before that some others,
so it certainly is prepared to do those and if asked, I am sure
the National Academies would be happy to put together an
appropriate panel to do that.
Ms. Wilson. I don't know if I have time, but in your
testimony you recommended that the Committee should reauthorize
NIST at the fullest funding level possible. If that is not
possible, could you please discuss the tradeoffs that NIST
would have to make?
Dr. Corotis. Well, the one thing that I have noticed is
consistent through the history of the reviews--I have been
involved for well over a decade--is that there is not what we
would call, ``fat''. There is not excess there. We have looked
at the quality and are very impressed with it. We think that if
there is a decrease in the money available, that NIST should--
and again, I am speaking as an individual here--should look at
what they would have to cut out, which is really a subject
matter for VCAT, that looks at what NIST is doing, but that
they should cut out some things rather than try and cross the
board to continue doing all they are doing, because the quality
is very high, but there is no excess of capabilities in there
for what they are doing. So not being a member of VCAT or of
NIST, I can't say what they should look at eliminating or what
it would be, but I can say that our reports have consistently
shown there is just not extra there that could be cut and have
them still continue to do the same breadth of programs.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Massie. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
I now recognize myself for five minutes.
I would like to start out with a general question. What
would you say--and I know this is a little bit like asking
which one of your children are your favorite children, but what
would you say the top three things that NIST does, in terms of
the projects or subcategories that they work on--in essence, if
you were to prioritize the programs at NIST, what would be the
highest priority programs, and could--I would like to ask this
of both of you, Dr. May and Dr. Corotis. You can go first, Dr.
Corotis.
Dr. Corotis. I was sure you were going to say Dr. May on
that one.
Chairman Massie. He was still writing.
Dr. Corotis. It is hard for me to be too specific at that,
because as I say, the National Academies have always been
charged with looking at is NIST doing it right, doing the
things they are doing right, and so we have always focused on
the quality of what they are doing. And there are no programs
that we have ever reviewed where we haven't come away with a
very positive feeling about the quality of what they are doing.
We have looked primarily at the quality, but we have always
been asked to look at its effectiveness for the country, and at
the adequate resources for what they are doing. And based on
that, there are no programs that we found don't have the
adequate resources to carry it out.
Chairman Massie. Let me try and ask the question a little
bit differently.
Dr. Corotis. Okay.
Chairman Massie. Let's say I am going over to vote, which I
will do in about 20 minutes here, I think----
Dr. Corotis. Okay.
Chairman Massie. --and I have got three members in the
elevator, and I am trying to motivate funding for NIST and I
say well, NIST is important because--and we have only got three
floors to go.
Dr. Corotis. Okay, three floors left. Well certainly, it is
manufacturing initiatives to work to promote U.S. manufacturing
in a global competition. It is extremely important, and they
have always been very good at that because there is a time in
manufacturing when the government needs to have standards and
measurements to enable free competition. And so knowing when to
come in and when to step back is something NIST has done very
well in manufacturing.
I think in terms of sustainability and safety to U.S.
communities, they have done an excellent job, whether
investigations of failures, of accidents, of natural hazards,
in looking at the importance of long-term planning for the
sustainability--and by sustainability, I am talking not just
the environmental and the physical, but the economic and social
sustainability. All of those are extremely important.
Chairman Massie. I think the elevator got to the floor.
Dr. Corotis. All right. I got to two.
Chairman Massie. I appreciate that. The same question, Dr.
May, if you could pick three, maybe?
Dr. May. I want to answer by saying that we must recognize
that we have already--that NIST sees our laboratory programs as
being our crown jewels, and we have already seen the
elimination of our Technology Innovation Program, and the
funding for our biology performance--program go to zero, so
that we could infuse those funds into the laboratory program.
So we certainly need to maintain them.
And the three things that we do that are critically
important is cutting edge measurement science. That is the
foundation for everything we do in the laboratory programs. We
provide--but again, if we only did cutting edge measurement
science, it would be hard to distinguish us from a university
or the National Science Foundation. We also provide world-class
measurement services to our industry, that is, through our
Standard Reference Materials, our Standard Reference Data
products, and our calibration programs. It is important that we
maintain those.
And the other thing that we provide is access to world-
class user facilities where scientists from industry and
academia can come in and use our facilities to do things that
they would not do, and I have a couple of good examples that I
can share with you on that. Talking about a large company, for
example, IBM recently came to our Center for Nanoscale Science
and Technology because they were trying to divine a next
generation chip for some of their devices. Now obviously, they
have the money to buy the $2 million piece of equipment that we
had; however, they didn't--they thought--they saw it
advantageous to come in and use our facility and our expertise
of our staff to work with them to see the--if indeed this idea
that they had would work so that they could take that back and
develop that.
We also had a very, very small company from San Diego who
came in and wanted to make essentially a GPS-like device that
would operate underground where you have no access to the
satellite. Again, they were able to come in. They had an idea,
worked with our staff to see if it was feasible, which indeed
they did, then they were able to take that back and start
developing a process. And we then actually agreed to actually
develop prototypes for them to make sure the manufacturing
process is sustainable, so that then they can go back and build
a factory and do this. So----
Chairman Massie. Thank you for that example. I am glad to
hear that at least two of your top three line up with Article
1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution. So you seem to
be on mission there with at least two of those.
I now yield five minutes to Peters from California.
Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, gentlemen, both for being here. Dr. May, thank you for
helping that company from San Diego. That is my hometown.
Dr. May, I had a question for you. You mentioned in your
written testimony that NIST's involvement in the smart grid is
a prime example of how NIST combines its core research
capability with extensive stakeholder engagement to drive
technology adoption. So the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel
which you created is a private-public partnership that develops
standards for technologies that modernize the electric power
grid. So we are going to face that in other kinds of sectors,
so I was kind of curious if you would tell us what was the
process that you used to incorporate and ensure industry input
so that we are working with industry to make sure that you got
the appropriate information?
Dr. May. Okay, and first of all, let me sort of define
standards, because the English language sort of uses the same
word to define, at least in this case, two things. In our
measurement standards, we are the authority source so we do the
measurement to support our measurement standards. For our
documentary standards, and we typically use the same word, this
is by a consistent process, and the United States actually
industry leads our standards making process, and we are simply
a facilitator. So with respect to this partnering, we did both.
We serve as a convener for the standard--the Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel, and actually, we spun that out. We led
that effort until it got mature, working with the industry to
agree on and adopt documentary standards of protocols and codes
that would be useful in the smart grid, and then in our
laboratory work, we actually did research in our Physical
Measurements Laboratory, primarily to provide the standards--
measurement standards that would allow the development and
implementation, for example, of smart meters and sensors that
would be used on the smart grid. So we use our responsibility
as a convener for the development of documentary standards,
working with the industry, and then we use our laboratory base
measurement activity to develop standards for the devices that
would actually operate on the smart grid and conform to these
documentary standards that we have developed.
Mr. Peters. Did any of the stakeholder companies express
any concern about sharing their information with NIST or with
the other companies that might have been involved, and if so,
how did you deal with that?
Dr. May. Well obviously people are reticent going in. We,
when necessary, can sign nondisclosure agreements, but in this
case, that really wasn't necessary. The documentary standards
that we develop only work at the sort of pre-competitive level.
We are just trying to find out the laws of the land, if you
will, and that all players agree to adhere to, and they, in
this process, don't usually have to divulge any proprietary
information.
Mr. Peters. When you are doing standards, I suppose that
makes sense because it is sort of early in the game.
Do you think that the voluntary standards--the voluntary
approach has worked well for NIST?
Dr. May. It has worked well. It is the process that we use
in the United States. It has stood the test of time.
Mr. Peters. Okay. I appreciate, again, both of you
gentlemen being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Massie. Thank you, Mr. Peters.
We are going to try to do a second round of questions. We
have votes coming up, but we will go until the votes are
called. At this point, since I am the only Member here on this
side, I am going to recognize myself for another five minutes.
Dr. May, you state in your testimony that the NIST
laboratory programs worked the frontiers of measurement
science, however, according to the National Research Council
review of manufacturing related activities at NIST--additive
manufacturing research, activities do not constitute the
cutting edge in this field and are being phased--being, in
fact, being outpaced by industry, according to them. How has
NIST responded to this finding, and are there any examples
where NIST has found themselves in this position and
discontinued projects? Could you describe that?
Dr. May. Sure. If--in our laboratory program, if we are not
making a positive contribution, we don't have any problem at
all to punt, because there are always more problems there than
we have resources to address. For example, in our Material
Measurement Laboratory, we have cut out--we stopped our program
in combustion science to use the resources there to expand our
program in atmospheric monitoring. We have reduced some of our
efforts that provide grants to support fire research to invest
in some of the manufacturing disciplines. So when we don't have
critical mass or are not making a significant impact, we
routinely reprogram our resources out of one area to strengthen
another.
Chairman Massie. Thank you for those examples. What about
the specific case of additive manufacturing research activities
that were identified?
Dr. May. We find the strength in that.
Chairman Massie. And----
Dr. May. In putting more resources into that, and I think
it is too early to talk about the success of that. Obviously,
we will do our internal evaluation and then we will ask for our
next external evaluation, because it is very hard, as you might
understand, for us to be totally objective.
Chairman Massie. Switching gears here. To what degree is
NIST still involved in the smart grid standards?
Dr. May. Well, in terms of the laboratory-based research,
we are still continuing to do research to improve the quality
of meters and sensors that would be used in smart grid. In
terms of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, that has been
spun off and that is being led by the private sector there, and
we are just a contributing member of the team.
Chairman Massie. Okay. In thinking about the smart grid
standard, just to be very specific on this question, is it
advance to having some sort of protocol for transmitting the
price of electricity to the consumer? For instance, from the
power plant to the consumer, do they--is there a protocol or
are you----
Dr. May. I am not fully aware. I will get that information
for you. Certainly, that is the intention down the road.
Exactly whether we are there at this point, I really can't say
but I will get that information back for you.
Chairman Massie. Okay. Thank you, Dr. May.
Dr. Corotis, you mentioned that one of the only areas at
NIST that has experienced challenges is in managing cross-
cutting research programs. What did the Academies find on this
front, and what is NIST doing, in your opinion, to address the
challenges?
Dr. Corotis. Well, that has been the hardest area, as
Ranking Member Wilson mentioned also, the cross-cutting ones.
The recent report of the manufacturing initiative, which is a
cross-cutting one, was very positive. They felt that NIST had,
perhaps, through the reorganization of 2009, 2010, been able to
look at a higher level across at the cross-cutting activities,
and in the case of manufacturing, it was well-coordinated
across the newly defined laboratory structure. We haven't yet
looked at biosciences. I should say that NIST was interested in
having NRC look at the biosciences this past year, but instead
focused on the assessment of assessment process and the
manufacturing. So we haven't seen yet anything with the
biosciences to be able to assess it, but certainly with the
manufacturing we saw improvement.
I was involved, oh, maybe eight years ago in a similar
cross-cutting in the electronics area where industry was moving
so fast the question was could NIST have the nimbleness to
really fulfill its mission there, and we had a generally very
positive review of that one also, so there certainly are
positive examples, but it was difficult in the old structure of
laboratories.
Chairman Massie. All right, thank you very much.
I am going to yield five minutes to Ms. Wilson for
questions.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This question is for Mr. Corotis. We all know that VCAT
probably should come and give us some input before we go for
the reauthorization of NIST, so perhaps at another hearing we
can get our Chairman to make sure that they are here. In the
meantime, I need to find out how you can help.
In your testimony, you mention how the Visiting Committee
on Advance Technology, which is VCAT, focuses on NIST's
research portfolio and the National Research Council focuses on
how NIST is conducting those research activities. One of your
recommendations was that there needs to be more formal and
regular interaction between the two groups. Please elaborate on
this recommendation, and discuss the current relationship and
tell us what you think the future relationship should include.
Dr. Corotis. Well, thank you very much.
Because NIST voluntarily contracts with the National
Research Council to do the assessment, it reports to the NIST
administration. It was true that some years ago, the heads of
the National Academy review and the VCAT would meet together
and even do briefings together, but somewhere along the way
that had passed off, and so right now, the National Academies
give all the reports to the administration of NIST. And of
course, this is NIST's option, since they contract with the
National Academies.
As I remember very vividly on September 11 of 2001, I was
briefing VCAT on behalf of the National Academies, even though
I was not Chair of the Committee at that time, so I remember
that day very specially. My personal feeling is that after
reading the assessment of assessment study that was done by the
Academies, that since those three aspects I mentioned of
management, quality, and relevance are so important that it is
very hard to separate them into the two categories of is NIST
doing the right things and is NIST doing things right? And so
it seems to me that, again, speaking only as an individual
Chair of this Committee, that for VCAT to hear the results of
the NRC studies and share them directly along with management
might be part of an overall plan that could be useful for NIST
in the long run.
Ms. Wilson. To follow up, NIST asked the National Academies
to review the assessment process of research and development
organizations. That review led to the report entitled ``Best
Practices in Assessment Research and Development
Organizations,'' which you discuss in your testimony. You
mention how it is important to assess the management, quality
of scientific and technical work, and the impacts and relevancy
of that work when assessing a research and development
organization. How is NIST being reviewed on these three items
currently? Could you please discuss how it is being reviewed?
Dr. Corotis. Yes, thank you. Clearly, the National
Academies address the quality of scientific and technical work,
and that is the number one thing we look at in all the programs
at NIST that are under assessment in any particular year. NIST
has also always asked the National Academies, as they always in
the past dozen years or so in which I have been involved, to
look at the impact of what is done and the relevance. So those
two areas have been studied by the National Academies, starting
with the quality. We have clearly stayed out of management and
strategic planning issues, feeling that came under the purview
of VCAT. So we have not offered advice, although once in a
while we slip in advice anyway even though we haven't been
asked, but we have really stayed out of the management and
strategic planning side, although it is hard to keep senior
people down. But we really haven't focused on that part, and I
think that the best practices study was an excellent one. I did
not lead it, although I was a member, and actually a former
NIST director was the leader of it who had other government
roles and private industry roles, and I think that it says the
right thing. You have to start at the management and that was
listed first, and then you have to look at the quality of what
is being done and then you have to look at the relevance of it.
And I think that VCAT comes in at the management and also at
the relevance and impact in guiding what programs to do.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. Thank you so much.
Chairman Massie. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
I would like to thank the witnesses today for their
valuable testimony and for taking the time to come here and
testify. Dr. May, I look forward to coming and visiting there
in Gaithersburg very much.
Dr. May. We would love to have you.
Chairman Massie. I am not sure when I would make it to
Colorado, though.
Dr. Corotis. Maybe for the NCAA final.
Chairman Massie. My team won't be there.
But anyway, the record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and for written questions from Members. At
this time, our votes have been called so we are going to end
the meeting here. The witnesses are excused, and this hearing
is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Hearing Questions
Answers to Hearing Questions submitted by Dr. Willie E. May, Associate
Director for Laboratory Programs, NIST
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.107
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted by Chairman Massie, Subcommittee on Technology
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.040
Submitted by Dr. Willie E. May, Associate Director for Laboratory
Programs, NIST
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0554.105