[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 16, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-836PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
GARY PALMER, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
March 16, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Subcommittee on
Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Written Statement............................................ 22
Witness:
Dr. Willie E. May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
Discussion....................................................... 38
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Willie E. May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology..................................................... 50
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
Budget Proposal for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology for Fiscal Year 2017.'' I now recognize myself for
five minutes for an opening statement.
I would first like to thank Dr. Willie May, Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, for
appearing today to discuss the NIST budget request for fiscal
year 2017.
This Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for
NIST and its contributions to research and development. As a
non-regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce that
works closely alongside industry, NIST works to promote U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
measurement science, standards, and technology.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request for NIST totals $1
billion, an increase of $50.5 million or about five percent
from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. A large portion of
this request is $730.5 million for NIST's Scientific and
Technical Research Services. The STRS request includes
increases for work conducted on measurement science for future
computing technologies and applications, advanced sensing for
manufacturing, biomanufacturing or engineered biology,
addressing spectrum issues, neutron research, and lab-to-market
or technology transfer promoting data-sharing efforts.
The requested increases from NIST for fiscal year 2017
would also be devoted in large part to bolster advanced
manufacturing initiatives at NIST. In fact, $47 million dollars
is requested for the National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation. This program was authorized by the Revitalize
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 authored by
Chairman Smith and approved by this Committee on a bipartisan
basis.
NIST is authorized to use up to $5 million per year of
appropriated funds for fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2024,
and the Department of Energy is authorized to transfer to NIST
up to $250 million of appropriated funds for that same period
of time.
To administer NNMI, the RAMI Act also established strategic
direction for the program and rules to assure fair competition
for federal dollars. The fiscal year 2017 request for NNMI is
an 88 percent increase from what was appropriated for fiscal
year 2016, and my colleagues and I will be asking questions
this morning about that increase and other aspects. We will
also learn more today about the Institute's investment in
cybersecurity and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
As you all know, one of the great challenges of the 21st
century is cybersecurity. This committee has held multiple
hearings on cybersecurity since the news over the summer that
the OPM was the target of two massive data breaches, exposing
the sensitive information of over 21 million Americans,
including me and many of my colleagues and many of our staff
here on Capitol Hill, as well as tens of thousands of our
constituents.
More recently, we have seen the example of the security
breach at the IRS, affecting hundreds of thousands of American
taxpayers.
Considering the constantly evolving cyber threats and
technology, it is imperative that we do everything that we can
to protect our citizens. In order to ensure this, NIST plays a
very important role by providing guidelines and standards to
help reduce cyber risks to federal agencies and critical
infrastructure.
Solutions are needed not only to prevent and detect cyber
attacks, but also to bolster rapid response and recovery. Last
week, I participated in several events on cybersecurity, and
I'm very pleased that in my district this is an issue they are
very much focused on, and certainly look forward to working
with NIST to make sure that we are on top of all of these key
issues.
I look forward to and am appreciative of the opportunity to
hear from Dr. May on how NIST plans to prioritize and manage
funding, as well as how it sets its budget.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, Ms. Esty, for an opening statement.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, and thank you for
holding today's important hearing to examine the fiscal year
2017 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which we will refer to as NIST because it's a whole
lot shorter.
Dr. Willie May, thank you so much for testifying this
morning and for your leadership at NIST.
For more than 100 years, NIST has supported the
competitiveness of American companies. NIST's broad and deep
technical experience has advanced measurement science,
standards, and technological innovation, creating a strong U.S.
economy and improving our quality of life. And I'm pleased that
the President's budget for NIST recognizes its importance to
this country, enabling the agency to play a prominent role in
revitalizing American manufacturing and expanding technology
transfer activities.
The Administration's budget request proposes increases for
two important manufacturing programs: the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, the MEP program; and, as was already
referenced by Chairwoman Comstock, the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation.
MEP centers help manufacturers increase their
profitability, streamline their processes, and adopt cutting-
edge manufacturing technologies. The Connecticut State
Technology Extension Program, or CONNSTEP as we call it, has
helped numerous Connecticut manufacturing companies. For
example, in my district, CONNSTEP helped Hologic, Incorporated,
a leading developer and manufacturer of medical imaging
systems, by working on one of their main manufacturing
facilities. This facility, located in Danbury, employs more
than 300 people and develops digital imaging technology for 3-D
mammography. CONNSTEP helped this company optimize their shop
floor layout in order to accommodate a new line of 3-D
mammography equipment and develop new training.
After working with CONNSTEP, the manufacturing facility saw
the following improvements: Their unit production increased by
11 percent, lead time reduced by 50 percent; they achieved
$280,000 in cost savings; they had an increase in sales of $80
million and 100 percent on-time shipment rate. Those are real
figures and real jobs and real savings for the American people.
And they are pretty impressive results and represent only one
example, one of many, where the MEP program has been serving
communities and serving companies across this country.
The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation is a
partnership among federal agencies, the private sector, and
colleges and universities to create a national research and
workforce training infrastructure for advanced manufacturing.
At a time when American manufacturers face workforce challenges
such as the growing skills gap, NNMI gives us a reason to be
optimistic. And I am pleased that Congress funded NIST this
year to establish the NNMI coordinating office.
I'm also happy to see that, last month, NIST announced an
open-topic competition for the formation of two new institutes.
As the only agency that isn't limited to a single mission, NIST
can invite a broad range of proposals to help grow America's
manufacturing future.
Finally, I'm pleased that the Administration's budget
request increases funding for technology transfer activities.
Federally funded research has changed our society and our
economy and has led to major job creation. It's difficult to
imagine or even remember a world without the Internet, GPS,
health- and life-saving technology that has all originated from
federally funded research.
In this Subcommittee we often discuss the value of
transferring federally funded research to the commercial
marketplace, and I was pleased to see that this budget proposes
developing and expanding platforms for sharing information and
knowledge. These programs represent only a small fraction of
the important work done at NIST.
NIST is a small federal agency with a grand purpose of
promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. At a
time when U.S. leadership in these areas is being challenged,
NIST is more important than ever.
Ms. Chairwoman, thank you again for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to working with you and our colleagues to
ensure that NIST has the resources it needs to fulfill its role
in promoting innovation, increasing our competitiveness, and
enhancing our national security. Thank you again, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Esty follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee for a statement, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or
NIST, is an agency that is central to the federal role in
advancing science, promoting innovation, and creating a more
prosperous nation. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witness, Dr. May, this morning.
It would be almost impossible to overstate the importance
of NIST, the federal agency that promotes U.S. innovation and
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology. In his first address to Congress, President
George Washington said, ``Uniformity in the currency, weights,
and measures of the United States is an object of great
importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.''
This responsibility was first given to an office in the
Treasury Department but then was moved over to the National
Bureau of Standards, NIST's predecessor, in 1901. Every
industry and nearly every technology relies on the measurement
and standards work at NIST, from the smart electric power grid,
to the computer chips, to building safety. NIST supplies
industry, academia, and government and other users with
thousands of standard reference materials in addition to doing
much of the testing and validation work in their own
laboratories.
Along with working with industry, academia, state and local
governments, and consumer groups to develop U.S. standards,
NIST accomplishes its mission of promoting U.S. innovation and
competitiveness through their research laboratories, Centers of
Excellence, and manufacturing programs.
I was happy to see the proposed increase in the fiscal year
2017 budget request for those programs, and I hope that
Congress will fully support the request. In particular, I was
happy to see the proposed increases in NIST's programs to
develop the measurement tools needed to support the engineering
biology research and biomanufacturing.
Engineering biology research and technologies are very
exciting and have the potential to solve some of society's
greatest challenges, including providing food for a growing
population, improving human health, reducing our dependency on
fossil fuels, and dramatically transforming manufacturing.
Given the promise of this research and its applications, I
introduced the Engineering Biology Research and Development Act
of 2015 with my Science Committee colleague Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Additionally, I am pleased the President's budget
recognizes the importance of NIST's role in American
manufacturing. The budget proposes an increase for both the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or the MEP program, and
the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, the NNMI.
Finally, I'm happy to see NIST leadership in the area of
forensic science and standards. The partnership between NIST
and the Department of Justice must continue to recognize NIST's
critical role in the development of technical standards for
forensic evidence. However, I'd like to emphasize that NIST
must ensure that forensic standards being developed are
consistent with NIST's longstanding commitment to science and a
fair and balanced standards-setting process.
As I have said in the past, NIST may be the most important
federal agency that most people have never heard of. I
appreciate that there are many worthy programs across the
government, and we cannot fund everything, but supporting the
agency that promotes U.S. innovation and competitiveness should
be an easy choice.
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you again for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to working with you and our
colleagues to ensure that NIST has the resources it needs to
fulfill its critical role. I thank you and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Dr. May, thank
you for being here today as well.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology supports
fundamental scientific research that is critical to American
innovation and competitiveness. NIST helps maintain industrial
and technical standards and manages cybersecurity guidelines
for federal agencies. Our challenge is to set funding
priorities that ensure America remains a leader in the global
marketplace of ideas and products, while also being able to
balance the government's budget.
As Chairwoman Comstock pointed out, the area of proposed
funding of $47 million for the National Network of
Manufacturing Innovation program is of particular concern with
the NIST fiscal year 2017 budget request. In 2014, this
Committee and the full House approved H.R. 2996, the Revitalize
American Manufacturing Innovation Act of 2014, or RAMI Act.
The RAMI Act was subsequently included in the fiscal year
2015 omnibus bill and signed into law by the President. This
bill authorized up to $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST.
The bulk of the program funding is to be transferred from the
Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy budget. Why hasn't this happened? It must if
the program is to continue.
In addition, there are concerns surrounding the explosion
at NIST that occurred when a senior officer with NIST Police
Services attempted to manufacture meth in a NIST facility. It
is surprising that a federal agency didn't know that a meth lab
was being run on its property, and without an explosion, it
might have never been discovered. The meth lab explosion and
subsequent investigation have raised serious concerns about the
safety and security of the entire NIST campus.
Information obtained during this Committee's investigation
of the meth lab at NIST appears to show a culture of waste,
fraud, abuse, and misconduct at NIST Police Services. For
example, time and attendance fraud occurred regularly at NIST
Police Services. In one instance, 84 hours of overtime was
recorded during a two week period while a full-time shift was
being covered. If accurate, that would mean the officer worked
16 hours a day, seven days a week. It also appears that police
equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars is unaccounted for
or missing from the police force.
These unfortunate examples undermine NIST's mission to
promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness, which
enhances economic security and improves our quality of life.
I hope to hear what steps have been taken in the wake of
the meth lab explosion to prevent further misuse of taxpayers'
dollars. Just as important is to find out why NIST continues to
ignore the RAMI Act.
I look forward to hearing from our witness today and yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
Now, let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is Dr.
Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology and Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NIST.
Prior to his Congressional confirmation, Dr. May served as
Acting NIST Director and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
Standards and Technology since June 2014. Prior to that
assignment, Dr. May was Associate Director for Laboratory
Programs where he was responsible for oversight and direction
of NIST's seven laboratory programs and served as the Principal
Deputy to the NIST Director. In addition, Dr. May has led NIST
research and measurement service programs in chemistry-related
areas for more than 20 years.
Dr. May received his undergraduate degree from Knoxville
College and his Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the
University of Maryland.
I welcome you here today, and I now recognize Dr. May for
five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIE E. MAY,
UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY AND DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. May. First, good morning to Committee Chairwoman
Comstock.
Full Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson,
Subcommittee Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking Member Esty and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to present the President's fiscal year
2017 budget request from the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
This budget request reflects the important role that NIST
plays in American innovation, productivity, trade, and public
safety. The measurement science and technology foundation that
NIST provides is essential to accelerating American innovation
through breakthroughs such as next-generation computing to
strengthening the digital economy and more efficient wireless
technology to overcome the spectrum crunch.
Additionally, researchers supported by this budget will
help embed NIST industrial center technologies to the factory
floor, thereby extending NIST's success with the electronics
industry to applications such as laser welding and
bioengineering.
To achieve our mission, the President has proposed a budget
for us of slightly more than $1 billion, a $50 million increase
over the enacted fiscal year 2016 budget. In addition to this
discretionary request, the President has proposed an additional
$2 billion in NIST mandatory funding to fully fund a network of
45 institutes in the National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation at $1.9 billion and an additional $100 million to
renovate and modernize the NIST facilities.
The President's budget continues to recognize the important
role that the NIST laboratory programs play by requesting
$730.5 million for our Scientific and Technical Research and
Services account, basically our lab program. This is a $4.5
million increase over the enacted fiscal year 2016 level. This
increase will allow NIST to lay the foundation for next-
generation computing and wireless revolution, transfer money-
saving technology to the factory floor, and bring our precision
engineering prowess to bear on emerging markets.
The fiscal year 2017 request will also continue to fund
critical work that we are doing in the areas of cybersecurity
and forensics but with no additional request. However, we are
requesting increases of $13.6 million for our Measurement
Science for Future Computing Technologies and Applications
program to position the United States to unlock the potential
of future computing technologies.
We are requesting an additional $2 million for advanced
sensing manufacturing to accelerate research efforts targeting
the development of advanced sensors, an additional $2 million
for biomanufacturing and engineering biology to assure the
quality of predictability in the design of synthetic biological
systems, and $2 million for Advanced Communications Research to
develop the measurement science and tools necessary to improve
spectrum-sharing and increase spectrum efficiency of commercial
wireless radiofrequency communication systems, an additional
$4.8 million to assure that NIST's world-class neutron facility
can continue to purchase the fuel needed to operate this
critical facility, and finally, $2 million to expand our Lab-
to-Market initiative, which focuses on transfer of technology
from the government, the public sector through data-sharing and
collaborative tools.
To support our outreach to the manufacturing industry, NIST
is requesting $189 million for our Industrial Technology
Services account. That's an increase of $34 million.
The requested $12 million increase for MEP will be used in
fiscal year 2017 to complete the final round of a multiyear
competition of our MEP centers and $22 million to support the
NNMI program that would allow us to fund additional institutes
and provide coordination for the network.
To support our aging facilities, our Construction of
Research Facilities, our CRF account, the request is $95
million. This is actually a decrease of $24 million over fiscal
year 2016.
And at this point I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for
its continuing strong support of the renovations of our aging
and deteriorating infrastructure that would otherwise threaten
our ability to deliver our mission.
The CRF number is a decrease, as I said earlier, from the
fiscal year 2016 enacted level, but it reflects a significant
initial investment of $119 million in fiscal year 2016 to begin
the renovation of our Radiation Physics building. At least $40
million of the '17 request will fund the second phase of the
multiyear renovation of that building, and the remaining $55
million of the request will be used to fund maintenance,
repair, improvements, and major renovations of our facilities
in Gaithersburg, Colorado, and Hawaii.
In conclusion, the fiscal year 2017 budget reflects the
Administration's recognition of the important role that NIST
plays in innovation, as well as the impact of the research that
we do and the measurement services we provide in laying and
maintaining the foundation for our nation's long-term job
creation and prosperity.
Through our laboratory programs, our outreach efforts, and
our standards development work, we are dedicated to providing
U.S. industry with the tools it needs to innovate, compete, and
flourish in this fierce global economy.
Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to continuing to work with
you and Members of the Subcommittee, and would now be happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. May follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you very much.
As you discussed and we've discussed here, NIST will
continue to fund the works in the areas of cybersecurity, and
I've certainly been very interested in that given all of the
recent problems that we're running into there. So I wanted to
ask, of the $74.2 million request in cybersecurity, more than
half supports R&D efforts. Can you just give us a picture of
some of that R&D taking place and how academia and industry are
involved and just, you know, a little view on that if you
could.
Dr. May. Well, we have a number of efforts in
cybersecurity. First of all, we have a very robust laboratory-
based research program in cybersecurity, but this is an area
that is moving very, very rapidly, and we saw the need for
reaching out and including industry in this. And we established
our National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence where we work
with 22 companies in that area to work on problems that they
see as a priority and take our standards that we developed,
based on our authority, and put them into practice, working
with these 22 companies. That is working very well, and we
expect that work to continue in the future.
We have a NICE program, which is the National Initiative on
Cybersecurity Education, where we are trying to educate the
next generation on the value of cybersecurity and actually
provide training in that realm. And we are improving or
increasing our bench depth in cryptography both from a
defensive, as well as an offensive perspective if you will.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. One of the things that I hear
from the companies in my district is how difficult it is for
people to get clearances. And, so oftentimes you get this
talent, and these kids are really good and want to come out and
work in this area so they can work for the government, but the
clearance process takes forever. Have you found that a problem
as you're trying to get talent within the government, too?
Dr. May. Well, certainly it's a challenge in that area
because there's a limited supply. However, we are very
aggressive and we are, I think, addressing that issue.
Chairwoman Comstock. Are you able to shorten the time
because the problem is, you know, these kids are coming out,
they're getting recruited by a lot of private companies where
they're going to make more money than in the government. So if
we're going to get them into the government and have them
working for us, we need to make sure we can streamline that
process and not lose them because it's sort of bureaucracy
within.
Dr. May. I could not agree more.
Chairwoman Comstock. Right. All right.
Let's see. How do you, given the importance of
cybersecurity and it's certainly in the forefront of our minds
on a lot of these issues we're dealing with, how do you decide
to increase spending in other areas and pick your priorities on
this? And do you feel comfortable where we're at on the
cybersecurity budget?
Dr. May. The Committee has been very generous to us over
the last several years in cybersecurity, and certainly we think
we have the resources now to deliver our mission in that area.
And we look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure
we can titrate this as we go forward to make sure that we
maintain the resources necessary to deliver our mission and
work with both government and industry to improve the
cybersecurity posture for our country.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. Thank you. And I know that NIST
is hosting its next Cybersecurity Framework Workshop on April 6
and 7. Can you give us a little insight into what changes to
the cybersecurity framework that we might see featured there--
--
Dr. May. Well, we----
Chairwoman Comstock. --give us a little preview of that?
Dr. May. We actually don't know.
Chairwoman Comstock. Oh.
Dr. May. The reason for this meeting is to work with
industry to determine what changes we might need to make to the
Framework, how quickly we might do that, and how. So this is an
information-gathering meeting so that we know how to blaze the
path forward with the Framework.
Chairwoman Comstock. All right. Thank you.
And I now yield to Ms. Esty for her five minutes.
Ms. Esty. Again, thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for
holding today's hearing.
Dr. May, as a member of the Science Committee as well as
the Transportation Committee, I understand the importance of
reliable communications technology, particularly in our new,
developing advanced transportation systems. From railroads to
tech startups, our companies depend on advanced communications
and spectrum to be able to communicate in real time.
Dr. May, NIST is asking for a $2 million increase to $15
million in funding for its Measurement Sciences program to
support advanced communications networks. Can you please
describe for us the challenges we face with the rapid advances
we're experiencing on our communications technologies and how
NIST intends to address these challenges through the proposed
increase?
Dr. May. Well, these activities will be focused primarily
in our newly--or recently created Communications Technologies
Laboratory. And we have three main work streams within that
laboratory. One is public safety communications to improve the
technology and provide the standards necessary to build out the
nationwide LTE network for first responders. So we're
responsible for the measurement standards and testing to make
sure that we can do this and do this in a manner that we
provide open competition for the vendors of devices that would
want to play in that space. Obviously, there are some
measurement and standards issues associated with with spectrum-
sharing and spectrum efficiency.
And finally, we are working with players around the world
to define what 5G will look like and to implement that to sort
of make sure that the United States is not left behind when it
comes to next-generation communications technologies.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. That's very helpful. And this is
ongoing, particularly on the public safety front. I can tell
you in the 41 cities and towns I represent, this is an ongoing
challenge about interoperability and their ability to
communicate with each other and coordinate, so I hope we can
move rapidly forward.
So those investments the taxpayers are making on the local
level are really wise investments that are going to be good for
a number of years and they're not going to have to, two years
from now, change their whole systems out again, which will be
very challenging.
Connecticut has a thriving manufacturing community in my
district. From Jonal Labs, which does aerospace and work for
NASA, to United Technologies Corporation, to Click Bond, to
Becton Dickinson Connecticut. Companies manufacture a broad
range of products, aerospace and bond fasteners. Through my
conversations with these companies, one common theme emerges,
and that is a concern about workforce readiness. Do our young
people have the skills necessary to compete in modern
manufacturing?
As you know, a strong domestic manufacturing base is
essential for high-quality jobs and for a living wage for many
people in this country. Can you explain to us a little bit how
the MEP's ExporTech program operates and what it's doing to
expand overseas markets and tech transfer for U.S. companies
and the goals of this program in the fiscal year 2017 budget?
Dr. May. Well, what we want to do is work with other
entities within government to 1) demonstrate that manufacturing
in fact is a viable career path for young folks and get the
word out. We have established a National Manufacturing Day that
takes place in early October every year where we point to the
future, at least try to get the young folks to see and
visualize the future that manufacturing is cool; there are
good, high-paying jobs; but more than that, working in
manufacturing is really being truly American because we need to
bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. We need to
be an exporter and not only an importer of goods. So we are
working with the entire community to try to strengthen
manufacturing and make sure that we get the word out that there
is a future in manufacturing, and it's critical to our country.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. And I suspect that the
Ranking Member of the full Committee will pick up with
biomanufacturing, which I would love to ask some questions
about, but my time is expired. Thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
Palmer for five minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. May, NIST has its own police force. How much do you
spend each year for that group?
Dr. May. About $8 million, sir.
Mr. Palmer. About $8 million. What activities or
investigations justify having a police unit within NIST?
Dr. May. Well, primarily, we've historically had a police
force at NIST, and the Federal Protective Service has granted
us the ability to maintain that on our campus. We also have
some fairly sensitive assets that I won't go into detail about
here--but I will do in private conversations with the
committee--that have to be maintained.
Mr. Palmer. Well, is it a----
Dr. May. So that was the historical basis.
Mr. Palmer. Is it a police force or a security force?
Dr. May. Actually, we have both. We have a perimeter
security force that guards the perimeter, and we actually have
a police force that is responsible for policing the campus.
Mr. Palmer. What do you spend on this perimeter security
force?
Dr. May. The exact numbers I'll have to get to you, but
that is a contract police force.
Mr. Palmer. It's a contract----
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. --force? All right. Does your police force have
the authority to make arrests?
Dr. May. They do have the authority to make arrests, and
they have made arrests.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. How many officers does NIST employee in
that force?
Dr. May. As I said, I don't have the numbers right before
me, but I would imagine with the police force, if we were fully
staffed, 15 to 20, and the external security, probably another
dozen. But I will get those numbers to you specifically.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. And I assume they're armed?
Dr. May. Well, I just don't know that it's appropriate for
me to discuss that operation in detail----
Mr. Palmer. Well, you're----
Dr. May. --but I can provide those numbers to you.
Mr. Palmer. I don't think there's any issue here with that.
I think it's pretty evident that they are armed, and what I
want to know is, is it side arms, is it small arms, is it
military-style weapons? How are they equipped?
Dr. May. Sir, I'll be happy to provide that as a matter of
record to the Committee.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. How long would that take?
Dr. May. We can get that to you by the end of the day if
you want.
Mr. Palmer. You outsourced your security. Why don't you
outsource your police force?
Dr. May. Well, we are a science and technology agency, and
knowing that, I've recently asked for an assessment of our
overall security posture by three external security experts.
They have given us their thoughts on the rightsizing and nature
of security force for our campus, and the questions that you
ask are being considered.
Mr. Palmer. Do you have them on one campus or do you have
multiple locations where your police are employed?
Dr. May. We have police on our Gaithersburg campus and on
our Boulder campus.
Mr. Palmer. You know, I----
Dr. May. Boulder, Colorado.
Mr. Palmer. I believe we have 70-something federal agencies
that have armed agents, including the EPA that has spent
several million dollars, and I don't know if it bothers anybody
else but it seems that it's almost like we've militarized
federal agencies. And I just don't understand why we have to
have so many agencies with their own armed agents providing
security when you could outsource that.
And I commend you for outsourcing your security force. I
understand you have certain specific issues that would require
protection, but I am very concerned about so many federal
agencies having armed agents and being armed with military-
style weapons. So if you would get back with that information,
and I think it will be helpful if you look at outsourcing your
police force.
Dr. May. Certainly, that issue is among the recommendations
that we've gotten from our three security experts, and we are
mulling over that issue now exactly how to move forward to
improve the security posture for both of our campuses.
Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you for your answers, Dr. May.
I'll yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I'll now recognize Ms.
Bonamici, who is also sitting in as our Ranking Member now.
Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Dr. May, welcome back to the Committee. I want to
start by thanking you and your team at NIST for working with
Oregon's Manufacturing Extension Partnership OMEP. I know they
appreciate the collaboration. And since 2003, OMEP has helped
with creating or maintaining more than 15,000 manufacturing
jobs in Oregon. And you talked about the importance of getting
the word out there that these are good jobs. I think you said
cool, cool jobs, and I want to mention that I went out to tour
Fort George Brewery in my district. They got some help with
OMEP to help with their canning process. That was pretty cool.
I also have in my district A.R.E. Manufacturing. That's a
contract shop in Newberg, Oregon, that specializes in making
precision equipment components for manufacturers. By working
with OMEP to develop a job-training program for their
employees, they were able to increase their entry-level hiring
pool and hire more qualified people, and so I appreciate all
the work that NIST has done with the MEP programs across the
country but particularly those I'm familiar with in Oregon.
Dr. May, over the past several years, our nation has
experienced historic and devastating natural disasters, and
numerous communities across the country are still recovering
and rebuilding. NIST is the lead agency for two important
natural disaster programs, the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program. Now, the Pacific Northwest is especially prone to
earthquakes. We are sitting off the Cascadia subduction zone in
the Northwest, and we are overdue, so it's not a question of if
there will be an earthquake; it's when. So can you describe the
role that NIST plays in these programs both as the lead agency,
as well as your role in working on research to improve the
performance of buildings and infrastructure in the face of a
disaster?
Dr. May. Well, we have a major program in our Engineering
Laboratory, a part of which used to be a Building and Fire
Research Laboratory, to provide the basic science and
engineering technology to modify the construction of buildings
for the areas to the hazards in that geographic locale. And
that's a longstanding program, and with support for this
Committee, we have been able to strengthen the program.
But we also coordinate NEHRP where we work with other
agencies to develop new standards and codes based on knowledge
that we gain from natural disasters that we actually can't
control that we can sort of try to respond to them and make our
built environment more resilient and resistant to things that
we can't control.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Certainly, more investment at the
front end saves lives and property later.
Also, Dr. May, federally funded research has led to many
innovations. We've heard about some of those today: GPS,
barcodes, lifesaving medications and treatments. In this
Committee we often hear about the challenges and obstacles to
successfully transferring federally funded research from the
lab to the private marketplace. The budget proposes an increase
in technology transfer activities to develop data-sharing and
collaborative tools and services. So can you elaborate, please,
on the efforts, how these efforts would help enable the
transfer of the federally funded research to the marketplace?
Dr. May. Well, certainly, as you mentioned and others have
mentioned, there are a lot of very important technologies and
tools that are being developed in our laboratories, but it's a
very large enterprise and we don't right now have ready access
to the information of the various components. For example, if
I'm in the private sector and I want to make something, there
might be inventions across several federal agencies where I
could pull that together if I only knew that they were there.
So our primary effort is to develop a resource, one-stop
shopping if you will, to look at the investments and the
technologies that are being developed in the public sector that
can be brought to bear to develop new technologies, new
inventions in the private sector.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
And I now recognize Mr. Loudermilk for five minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Dr. May,
thank you for being here.
During my first year in Congress here, I've been quite
amazed. You know, we live in reality TV show, conspiracy TV
show, those things dominate our culture today, but the more
I've been here, the more I see that a lot of things that happen
in the federal government would make--we feed a lot of the
information to these. But can we bring up the first slide here?
[Slide.]
Mr. Loudermilk. I want to bring up an incident that I'm
sure you're aware of that happened in May of 2015 where one of
the senior NIST police officers was operating a meth lab that
apparently there was an explosion at the agency. He was using a
vacant building to actually cook meth. Of course, thankfully,
that police officer is currently in jail for manufacturing
methamphetamine, but the fact that he was able to smuggle the
necessary materials into a vacant NIST building is
embarrassing, but it also raises serious questions about safety
and security of the whole facility, as well as the people who
live and work in Gaithersburg. I'm sure you, too, would agree
that the meth lab explosion was a serious incident. I'm sure
you're aware of that incident. Do you feel that was a serious--
--
Dr. May. It certainly was, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. It was. Is that one of the most serious
incidents that has ever happened at NIST?
Dr. May. From a perspective of the----
Mr. Loudermilk. Since you've been there?
Dr. May. --of embarrassment--I've been there 45 years.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
Dr. May. I've been there a long time. On an embarrassment
scale, yes. In terms of actual structural damage, no, because
the structural damage was very, very minimal. We had a fire in
one of our laboratories. So in terms of destruction of
property, this ranks very low because the building that this
activity took place in was designed for hazardous--it used to
be called a Hazards Lab as a matter of fact, and it has blowout
panels in case there is a pressure buildup. The panels behaved
as they should. They were placed back in the next day, and
there was minimal structural damage to the building.
Mr. Loudermilk. So the primary thing, though, is an
embarrassment?
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. So you don't feel that there's a security
concern or that the money you're spending on the officers, law
enforcement officers at NIST actually committing felonies on
property, that's not a concern?
Dr. May. Oh, that is a big concern.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Dr. May. That is a big concern. As I had mentioned before
you came in, after this incident took place, I requested input
from security experts from three other sources that----
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Dr. May. that operate environments like us to give us their
input----
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Dr. May. --on how we can strengthen the security posture of
our campus beyond this, and all indicated that in a situation
similar to this it would be hard to anticipate what a trusted
member of your security staff might do.
Mr. Loudermilk. And I understand it, and I apologize for
just popping in, but I am dealing with homeland security issues
as well, which is very important.
But after the explosion, you briefed this Committee staff
on the incident. In the briefing you referred to the explosion
as a near miss. You stand by that characterization that it was,
you know, a near miss since no one was hurt or----
Dr. May. Well, it opened our eyes and made us--well, for
one, it compelled me to get some outside expertise or input on
how we might strengthen our security posture and to take a deep
dive----
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Dr. May. --actually. So I guess near miss----
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
Dr. May. --that no one was seriously hurt. And again, it
opened our eyes that we needed to take a deep look and
investigation into our security personnel.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Can we bring up slide two? I want to
make sure we get to this, too, as our time is running down.
[Slide.]
Mr. Loudermilk. This is an email from your Chief of Staff
Kevin Kimball in the aftermath of the meth lab explosion.
Referring to the explosion, Mr. Kimball writes, ``Can't see how
this rises to an audit risk. Don't remember briefing the
auditors after the plutonium''--assume incident--``and that was
a thousand times more of a risk.'' What incident is he talking
about that was a thousand times worse than a meth lab
exploding?
Dr. May. Well, that was an incident that took place in our
Boulder laboratory, I think, in 2007 where a small amount of
plutonium was released into the sewer system based on some
research that we were doing out there.
Mr. Loudermilk. Into the sewer system?
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you agree that that was a thousand times
worse than the meth lab?
Dr. May. Well, I had not thought about how I would quantify
that, but certainly I think that in fact in terms of danger to
the public, yes, that was more serious than that particular
incident.
Mr. Loudermilk. So was this plutonium incident released--or
reported to this Committee or any Members of Congress or----
Dr. May. It was, and in fact the then-Acting Director
testified before this Committee about that incident.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Are there any other incidents that we
should know about that are a thousand times or a hundred times
worse than the meth lab?
Dr. May. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Well, I think the other questions I
have have already been answered, Madam Chairwoman, and so I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. I now recognize Mr. Tonko for
five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Dr. May.
As a representative for the capital region of New York, I
realize that moving toward an innovation economy is the key to
our economic growth. With that in mind, I'm pleased to witness
our nation's renewed desire to invest in high-tech
manufacturing and in innovation economy. I see great hope for
these efforts, especially inspired by the formulation of the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI.
I have some questions this morning that aim to seek clarity
in the NIST NNMI selection process as we move forward.
In December of 2015, NIST published a notice of intent that
indicated that NIST was especially interested in two areas of
focus, including collaborative manufacturing robots and
biopharmaceuticals manufacturing. However, in the Federal
Funding Opportunity, the FFO, neither topic was mentioned.
This year, the Department of Defense issued a request for
information for new manufacturing innovation institutes, and
the Department of Defense listed six technical focus areas
under consideration, including two topics: one, the assistive
and soft robotics; and bioengineering for regenerative medicine
as another, which are similar to NIST's area of focus.
Presumably, NIST and DOD would not want to select areas, I
would imagine, that are too much alike.
So, Dr. May, can you further discuss the process that NIST
would use or will use to select a proposal?
Dr. May. Well, please excuse the colloquialism, but for the
December announcement I'll just say my bad. What we intended to
do was address the concern that you've expressed that we were
looking in our Institutes that we would sponsor to the
Department of Commerce not to duplicate anything that was
ongoing or planned by the Department of Energy or the
Department of Defense or any other federal agency that would be
standing up a manufacturing institute. And we gave two
examples, the examples of biomanufacturing and engineering
robotics were just two examples.
And in retrospect, they probably should not have been
called out because it did cause confusion. But I am here to
guarantee to you that our process and the process that we
launched about a week ago, week-and-a-half ago, is one that
will be truly open, and we will not support any institute that
is already in existence or planned by any other federal agency.
Mr. Tonko. So, as you go forward, the coordination with DOD
would be----
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. --a very strong part of your interoperations?
Dr. May. It will be, it has been, and through our Advanced
Manufacturing Program Office, we actually provide the
coordination and glue for the network, so we are in constant
contact there. There is a call that I'm a part of, and with our
representatives from the National Economic Council, as well as
DOE and DOD on a regular basis, so we are in constant
communication.
Mr. Tonko. And could one agency decide to not select a
proposal that was too similar to a proposed--a proposal that
another agency is considering?
Dr. May. As a matter of fact, I think we have a process in
place where it wouldn't be just the agency decides. We would
decide as a collective because we are trying to operate a
network, although it has individual nodes, but we're trying to
work on behalf of this again is a cliche, but the American
people, and certainly we don't want to have any duplicative
activities.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I know a number of institutions in my
district have specific abilities in these disciplines, so I'm
just concerned. Is NIST planning sequential awards?
Dr. May. Can you explain what you mean by sequential?
Mr. Tonko. Well, as you go forward, will there be
additional awards that NIST is looking at where you would use
the initial pool of proposals for future awards?
Dr. May. Yes. What we are planning to do is to, with this
call, essentially establish a queue, and we have resources to
fund one institute from our fiscal year 2016 funds. The funds
requested in the '17 budget should allow us to establish two
additional ones, and we would establish the queue based on the
call that is out at present.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. I would strongly encourage the
continuation of some of these thematics that you've outlined. I
think they're critical to our manufacturing base, and
certainly, I think that there's a great contribution that many
of our higher ed centers and private sectors could offer
through a collaborative. So I'm a very strong fan of NNMI and
hope it continues in a way that's targeted to the strength that
we have in our nation----
Dr. May. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. --to strengthen us across the board.
Dr. May. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. And with that----
Chairwoman Comstock. And I now recognize Mr. Hultgren for
five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate it so
much.
And thank you, Dr. May, for being here. I do really
appreciate the work at NIST and see how important cooperation
is, communication is, and wanted just to ask you a few
questions. I apologize. I've got a couple hearings going on at
the same time, so if any of this has been covered, I'm sorry. I
wasn't able to hear about it, but I did want to get some
answers on this.
I wondered, have any program funds come from DOE's EERE
program, as was stipulated in the bipartisan RAMI Act, which
was something I supported and cosponsored? If not, why not, and
is there any plan for funds to be transferred from EERE to the
Department of Commerce to carry out NNMI in the future?
Dr. May. Well, first of all, we are very appreciative of
your support of the RAMI bill because that authorized us to,
one, to sponsor institutes from the Department of Commerce, and
it also gave NIST the authority to set up our Advanced
Manufacturing Program Office to coordinate the activities for
the network.
However, that was an authorization bill and not an
appropriation bill, and the bill says the Secretary of Energy
may, it didn't say shall, and to this date, this hasn't
happened. But we have gotten an appropriation in '16 for $25
million to begin this process, and we're going use funds from
that to support at least one network in '16, and with the
request in '17, two more, and to begin activities of
coordination, information-sharing within the network.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I do hope it moves forward. Were you
involved in or were you aware of any discussions between the
Commerce Department and the Energy Department about carrying
out the RAMI Act after it was signed into law? It sounds like
there was some conversations there. Were you a part of those?
Dr. May. Yes, I was.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And that was really what you're
referring to now where it was the difference between whether it
was appropriations or an act?
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Well, again, hopefully, that can be
clarified. Hopefully, these important programs, some in
Illinois, can move forward and absolutely will be making a
difference.
I wonder, how will NIST evaluate competing proposals from
different industry sectors? Will NIST treat each industry as
equal and decide on the basis of the proposal details and
private financial contributions when you're looking at the RAMI
Act?
Dr. May. Well, in short, I think we are going to cut the
best deal for the American people.
Mr. Hultgren. What does that----
Dr. May. I----
Mr. Hultgren. Can you explain it a little bit better for
me?
Dr. May. Well, what we're looking for in these institutes
are institutes that have the potential to be sustainable. They
need to address one of the needed areas in the advanced
manufacturing domain. And we will look at all proposals and
select the one based, one, on no duplication of activities
currently ongoing within other institutes and address the
greatest need, the strongest partnership among industry and
academia.
Mr. Hultgren. So your plan is to treat each industry as
equal and truly decide on the basis of proposal details and
private financial contributions and not have a preset agenda--
--
Dr. May. Exactly.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And how do you plan to integrate new
centers with existing ones?
Dr. May. Well, new centers will be a part of the network,
and they will have the services of the NIST Advanced
Manufacturing Office to provide them with best practices,
information-sharing, so they will again be a member of the
team.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. So, again, the RAMI Act, again, I was
proud to support that, proud to be a cosponsor of it, but also
a big reason why I support it was my understanding was it was a
merit-based, nonpolitical process for----
Dr. May. Yes.
Mr. Hultgren. --soliciting, evaluating, and competitively
funding new manufacturing innovation centers. That's still your
commitment to----
Dr. May. That's still our commitment.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And we want to obviously see that
happen. Hopefully, this will continue to move forward. We all
agree it's important. It's been a little disappointing and
frustrating on our part that it hasn't moved more quickly, and
my hope is that that will happen soon and that the commitment
that you've made today and previous commitments of keeping
politics out of this and really looking at industries that are
best fit and can put the best proposals together will be the
ones that are receiving the opportunity in the centers.
So I'm out of time. I will yield back to the Chairman.
Thank you.
Dr. May. And, sir, that is our commitment to you and to the
Subcommittee.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Dr. May.
And I'd like to thank you also for your testimony and the
members for their questions. And the record will remain open
for two weeks for additional written comments and written
questions from members. We appreciate your work on this
important subject and look forward to continuing to work with
you, Dr. May.
The hearing is adjourned.
Dr. May. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Willie E. May
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]