[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISCAL YEAR 2005 NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET:
VIEWS FROM INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-215 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California NICK LAMPSON, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
Washington LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRAD SHERMAN, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah VACANCY
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama VACANCY
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
NICK SMITH, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
VACANCY BART GORDON, Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
ERIC WEBSTER Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member
OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
AMY CARROLL Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
ADAM SHAMPAINE Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
April 28, 2004
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Michael Honda, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Lincoln Davis, Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Daryl G. Hatano, Vice President for Public Policy for the
Semiconductor Industry Association
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 20
Ms. Deborah L. Grubbe, Corporate Dirrector for Safety and Health,
DuPont, Wilmington, Delaware; Member of the NIST Visiting
Committee on Advanced Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 25
Dr. Thomas A. Cellucci, President, Chief Operating Officer, Zyvex
Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 30
Mr. James J. Jasinski, Vice President of Federal and State
Systems for Cogent Systems, Pasadena, California
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 32
Biography.................................................... 35
Mr. John Biechman, Vice President for Government Affairs for
National Fire Protection Association
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 40
Discussion
Impact of National Institutes of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Funding on Current and Future Developments Within the
Science and Technology Industry.............................. 40
Industry Suggestions on NIST Budget Increases.................. 41
Advantage of the Science and Technology Industry Gaining
Funding From NIST Versus From Other Federal Agencies......... 44
Integration of NIST Study Results into Fire and Building Codes. 45
The Nature and Significance of the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) of the NIST............................................ 47
Will the Establishment of Institutions Similar to NIST in Other
Countries Contribute to the Relocation of Industry
Activities, Particularly Research and Development, to These
Countries?................................................... 50
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
FY 2004 Budget Cut Impacts Summary............................... 52
Statement by the American Chemical Society....................... 59
Statement by the American Society for Quality.................... 60
Statement by the Computing Research Association and the
Association for Computing Machinery............................ 61
Statement by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc.-United States of America (IEEE-USA)............ 62
Statement by the Rohm and Haas Company........................... 63
Letter to the House of Representatives by The Alliance for
Science & Technology Research in America (ASTRA)............... 65
FISCAL YEAR 2005 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET:
VIEWS FROM INDUSTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J.
Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fiscal Year 2005 National Institute
of Standards and Technology Budget:
Views From Industry
wednesday, april 28, 2004
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, the House Science Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing to examine
the role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
laboratories in serving industry and whether the funding for the NIST
laboratories is adequate to support the measurement and standards needs
of the U.S. economy. The hearing will also review how the NIST Fiscal
Year (FY) 2005 budget request for its laboratory research programs will
help support industry, homeland security, and its mission in
measurement technology and standards development.
Witnesses:
Mr. Daryl Hatano is the Vice President for Public Policy for the
Semiconductor Industry Association.
Dr. Thomas Cellucci is the President and Chief Operating Officer at the
Zyvex Corporation, a nanotechnology company located in Richardson,
Texas. Dr. Cellucci has worked for several technology companies.
Ms. Deborah Grubbe is the Corporate Director for Safety and Health at
DuPont, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Ms. Grubbe is also a
member of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT), an
advisory committee established by National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act.
Mr. James Jasinski is Vice President of Federal and State Systems for
Cogent Systems, a biometrics company headquartered in Pasadena,
California. Cogent Systems has worked with NIST on the development of
biometrics for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (U.S.-VISIT) program.
Mr. John Biechman is Vice President for Government Affairs for National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA works with NIST on standards
for equipment for firefighters and first responders.
The Subcommittee plans to explore the following questions:
1. What specific services do NIST's laboratories provide to
U.S. industries? Are there other sources of these services?
2. Is NIST's FY05 budget request keeping pace with its basic
mission, as well as its additional responsibilities in such
areas as homeland security, voting standards, cyber security,
and nanotechnology?
3. What are the impacts of the FY04 appropriation on NIST's
ability to meet its mission requirements? What will be the
long-term implications for NIST and for U.S. technological and
economic competitiveness if future funding is not increased?
4. What technological opportunities are not being fully
exploited because of NIST's current level of funding?
Background
The law creating the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST, then named the National Bureau of Standards) was signed March 3,
1901. NIST has two laboratory campuses, one in Gaithersburg, MD, and
the other in Boulder, CO, and a joint institute with the University of
Colorado at Boulder, the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
(JILA). NIST scientists have won two Nobel prizes since 1997.
The NIST laboratory programs are organized into eight laboratories
that conduct research in a wide variety of physical and engineering
sciences. The labs respond to industry needs for measurement methods,
tools, data, and technology. NIST helps to produce and support
voluntary standards for industrial applications. NIST researchers
collaborate with colleagues in industry, academia, and other government
agencies. The eight NIST laboratories are:
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
Chemical Sciences and Technology Laboratory
Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory
Information Technology Laboratory
Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory
Physics Laboratory
Technology Services Laboratory.
In addition, NIST houses three major facilities that play a
critical role in measurement and standards research, as well as
supporting technology development for future industries. These are the
Atomic Clock, the Neutron Spallation Source, and the Advanced
Measurements Laboratory (AML), which is scheduled to open later this
year. The construction of the AML was funded through the NIST
Construction account. The total cost of the AML was $235 million.
NIST is also the home of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
which funds joint R&D projects with industry; the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which provides technical
assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers; and the Baldrige
National Quality Program (BNPQ) which assists companies and other
organizations with quality management.
The NIST laboratories are funded out of the Science, Technology,
and Research Services (STRS) account in the NIST budget and received
$338 million in FY04. The NIST labs also receive some funds (about $40
million) from the ATP to work on specific projects. Federal agencies
provide NIST with roughly an additional $100 million in return for NIST
technical assistance, spread among a range of projects on a
reimbursable basis. The NIST labs also receive approximately $60
million a year from various companies in return for fee-for-service
work and use of NIST's scientific resources.
Recent Events and Issues
The FY04 Appropriation Cut Funding for NIST's Laboratories.
The FY04 appropriation for NIST's lab account was $338.6 million, a
cut of 5.2 percent ($20 million) from the FY03 appropriation. This
appropriation was also $49 million below the President's request.
Attached is a detailed account, provided by NIST, of how the impacts of
the FY04 budget would be absorbed by its laboratories, and the
resulting cuts to laboratory programs. A few examples are:
The elimination of the Information Technology
Laboratory's (ITL) Computer Security Expert Assistance Team
(CSEAT) which would have provided federal agencies with hands-
on guidance on remediating cyber security vulnerabilities.
A substantial reduction in the availability of the
NIST Center for Neutron Research to internal and external
scientists who study the structure and function of advanced
materials.
The elimination of NIST's contribution to the UNICAT
X-ray facility at Argonne National Laboratory, which may result
in the breakup of the UNICAT consortium.
Layoffs of up to 100 scientists at NIST.
The cuts in the FY04 appropriation are even greater than they
appear. First, $21.5 million is earmarked for congressionally mandated
projects. Second, NIST did not receive the $9 million it needed to
cover federally mandated pay increases and inflationary increases in
the costs of doing research. These increases are calculated each year
as ``Adjustments to Base'' or ``ATBs'' and usually included in the
Administration's budget request. Since 1998, the cumulative shortfall
in appropriated ATBs has amounted to nearly $42 million. These
shortfalls must be absorbed by NIST programs, including the
laboratories.
The FY05 President's Budget Request, If Funded, Would Help Restore This
Cut.
The Administration's FY05 budget request includes $422 million for
the core NIST laboratory functions--an increase of about $84 million,
or almost 25 percent. This would restore the steep funding cuts that
NIST's base programs sustained in FY04.
The proposed request must cover the cost-of-living increase for
federal employees, the one-time costs associated with purchasing
equipment for the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML), the loss
of internal NIST funding from the proposed elimination of the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), and the costs of laying off employees who
worked on ATP. The entire remainder of the proposed increase would be
needed to restore the cuts made to NIST's base programs in FY04.
Research of Particular Interest to Congress
NIST Supports Standards for Biometrics
Biometrics is a term used to describe the automated methods of
recognizing a person based on physiological or behavioral
characteristics. Among the features measured are: faces, fingerprints,
hand geometry, handwriting, irises, retinas, veins, and voices.
Achieving sufficient accuracy and reliability in biometric technology
has been a challenge, but NIST has been working with industry to
develop standards to meet these challenges. NIST has more than 10 years
of experience in biometrics, including work on the rapid and accurate
transmission of biometric data to facilitate cooperation between local,
State, and federal law enforcement agencies. NIST is also carrying out
mandatory work under the USA-PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) to develop and
certify technology standards to verify the identities of visa
applicants and other persons seeking to enter the U.S., and is
currently running tests using face and fingerprint data, with future
tests planned for iris scanning devices.
NIST currently has no funding of its own for biometrics, but gets
about $5 million in other agency funding. The FY05 request for NIST
includes $1 million to enhance NIST's biometrics work including
investigations of how to use ``multi-modal'' biometrics (techniques
that combine two or more measurements simultaneously, e.g., fingerprint
and iris scan).
NIST Helps Develop Standards for Equipment for First Responders
For the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), NIST is facilitating
the development of a suite of national standards that establish minimum
performance requirements for respirators and other essential equipment
designed to protect first responders against chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) hazards. Announced on
February 26, 2004, the first of these DHS standards--three for
respiratory equipment and five for protective clothing--incorporate
expertise and technical contributions from private-sector standards
organizations and federal agencies. This kind of work helps reduce
complexity for pubic safety organizations and procurement officials,
ensuring consistency by linking and cross-referencing corresponding
performance specifications. These standards incorporate work by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the National Institute
of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).
The FY05 request includes $7.5 million to develop improved CBRNE
measurements and guidance to detect and disable these threats. This
work will help instrument manufacturers, analysis laboratories, and
government agencies determine instrument accuracy and sensitivity.
NIST Reviews the Performance of Fire, Smoke, and Other Detection
Systems
NIST is involved in many aspects of technology and testing to
support the mission of firefighters and other first responders. Much of
this is done through the Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
although other NIST labs also contribute. For example, NIST recently
completed a two-year, comprehensive survey of smoke detector
performance, the first such review in 25 years. NIST found that
ionization smoke detectors work more quickly for flaming fires than do
photoelectric alarms. Photoelectric alarms, on the other hand, often
provide faster response time to smoldering fires. The tests also showed
that the typical contents of a home burned hotter and faster than 25
years ago, giving occupants less time to escape a burning building
safely. This study was partly sponsored by the NFPA, the U.S. Fire
Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Because of
budget cuts, however, NIST will have to delay a similar evaluation of
explosive and flammable vapor detectors, and will have to cut the
national fire grants programs again.
Nanotechnology Development Needs NIST Expertise and Facilities
Cutting-edge nanoscale manufacturing, particularly in electronics,
is rapidly approaching the boundaries of what is measurable and thus
what can be built. NIST is pushing those boundaries by developing new
ways to measure increasingly small things. NIST is also working on new
ways to fabricate materials at the nanoscale with increasing precision
and consistency. The FY04 appropriation cut funding for the Electronics
and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, the Materials Science and
Engineering Laboratory, and delayed work at the Manufacturing
Engineering Laboratory in this field. All three of these labs have
critical contributions to make to the development and support of a
nanotechnology industry.
The FY05 request, however, includes a $12 million increase for
nanotechnology work by these three labs, plus a one-time, $25 million
sum for the purchase of the equipment that will establish the new
Advanced Measurements Laboratory (AML) as a world-class facility.
NIST Supports Standards for the Chemical Industry
NIST's Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL) is the
primary reference laboratory for chemical measurements in the U.S. Its
calibration services and library of standard reference materials are a
resource to which all chemistry-related measurements can be traced and
verified. This provides the fundamental basis for scientific certainty,
consistency, and accuracy in the chemical industry, academia, and
government research. Reference materials and calibrations provide
traceability to the International System of Units (SI), which is
essential to fair trade. CSTL maintains and develops standards for
chemical processes, maintaining the U.S. standard for temperature,
humidity, pressure and vacuum, fluid flow, air speed, liquid density
and volume, all things that govern industrial production technologies.
CSTL's scientists support existing and develop new reference methods
and standards for clinical diagnosis and other medical applications,
ensuring the quality of health care and pharmaceuticals in the U.S.
As a result of the FY04 appropriation and staff reductions, CSTL
has had to delay work related to the natural gas and refrigerant
industries, and severely reduce its programs in computational biology
and bioinformatics, both areas identified as having strong potential
for economic growth and the production of new and more precise methods
of drug development. The FY05 request includes $1.6 million for
standards for such diagnostics technologies as portable test kits for
infectious diseases, glucose, and cholesterol monitoring. NIST will
also conduct tissue engineering-related materials chemistry research
for implants that do not provoke rejection.
Cyber Security
NIST runs a variety of cyber security-related projects, but the
FY04 appropriation cut the Information Technology Laboratory by more
than $3 million, causing a reduction in these efforts. NIST's Computer
Security Expert Assistance Team (CSEAT) program, which was supposed to
provide federal agencies with hands-on expert guidance to remediate
security vulnerabilities, is being eliminated. The recently enacted
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) mandated the
development of checklists and guidelines for the procurement of
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) security technologies. This work will
also be delayed.
The FY05 request includes a $6 million increase for Computer
Science and Applied Mathematics for the delayed cyber security
activities, as well as the development of wireless security and
cryptographic standards for small, mobile devices such as BlackBerries
and cellular phones.
Other Federal Agencies Rely on NIST
NIST does work for other federal agencies, but the money for these
projects varies from year to year. Funding from federal sources
increased from $70 million in FY 1998 to about $115 million in FY 2003,
as agencies came increasingly to rely upon NIST scientists. Funding in
FY04 decreased slightly to about $110 million.
The reduction in NIST's base funding may impair its future ability
to provide expert assistance to federal agencies. This is already the
case with cyber security (see above). NIST has also had to delay its
involvement in the development of armor, structural, and projectile
applications for the Department of Defense by the Materials Science and
Engineering Lab. NIST is trying to manage the RIF process by allowing
some of its most senior scientists to take early retirement. Although
this will reduce the number of involuntary lay-offs, it means these
individuals will not be there when agencies come to NIST seeking their
advice.
Other NIST Budget Issues
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program Has Been Cut
The MEP program is a network of 400 centers and satellite offices,
often partnered with universities and community colleges, offering
technical assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. MEP helps
businesses become more efficient and develop new capabilities, making
them competitive in the increasingly global economy. The MEP centers
are funded on a cost-shared basis with NIST providing one-third of the
funds. States and fees charged to the manufacturers, make up the
remainder, so every federal dollar leverages approximately two dollars
from other sources. The FY04 appropriation for MEP cut the program by
more than 60 percent, from $106 million to $39 million. As a result,
more than half of the MEP centers and offices may have to close. The
Administration is seeking additional funds within existing budgets that
could be used to support MEP centers, and recently announced that the
Economic Development Agency (EDA) would open its grants to MEP centers.
Only about $5 million remains this fiscal year, but $45 million is
expected to be available in FY05, although MEP centers would have to go
through a competitive application process to secure these funds.
The FY05 request maintains funding at the reduced level of $39
million, maintaining the impact of the cut. MEP offices have already
had to lay off staff and reduce services because of the FY04 cut.
Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
Congress established ATP in 1988 to restore and enhance the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy. It is a competitive grant program
that funds cost-shared technology development projects with companies
to advance promising technologies to bridge the gap between the
research laboratory and the marketplace. ATP seeks to develop pre-
competitive, emerging, and high-risk technologies that promise
significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits. ATP is designed
to support technical research, not product development. The FY04
appropriation funded ATP at $179 million, but the Administration
request for FY05 eliminates the program entirely.
Voting Technology Standards Have Not Been Funded
The FY04 appropriation and FY05 request did not include money for
voting standards, a critical part of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
The development of new voluntary standards was intended to increase the
reliability of new voting equipment that States are required to buy
under HAVA. NIST's Information Technology Lab was cut by $3 million in
FY04, which meant that NIST could not even continue the work it had
already started in voting standards development in FY03. The Science
Committee has worked with NIST to shift $350,000 in internal money for
FY04 to allow some continuity in this project, and provide some
technical assistance to the newly-created Election Assistance
Commission. However, $1.8 million is needed if a comprehensive
standards development process for voting technology is to begin in
FY05.
World Trade Center Investigation
NIST is in the process of completing its technical investigation of
the collapse of the World Trade Center, and the Station Nightclub fire
in West Warwick, Rhode Island. Under the National Construction Safety
Team (NCST) Act, NIST is responsible for conducting investigations of
events causing building failures that result in substantial loss of
life or pose the potential for substantial loss of life. The NIST
investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the
building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency
response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The
goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are
designed, constructed, maintained and used. NIST received $4 million in
the FY04 appropriation, which is expected to be sufficient to complete
the investigation this year.
Witness Questions
In their letters of invitation, all the witnesses were asked to
respond to the following questions:
1) Describe how your company or organization has worked with
NIST and how NIST's work has assisted your company or
organization.
2) Are NIST research and services available elsewhere and to
what extent would you use these if NIST were unable to provide
them? Are there limitations or drawbacks to using these
alternatives?
3) How have or how will the reductions in NIST's funding
affected its ability to support your company or organization?
How would the proposed Fiscal Year 2005 increases help?
4) If NIST had more resources and staff available on a
consistent basis, what kinds of new work would you want NIST to
do in the future?
Chairman Ehlers. I am pleased to call to order the hearing
entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2005 National Institute of Standards
and Technology Budget: Views From Industry.''
We are here today to talk about one of the Nation's least
known, but most critical, science programs, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST but
previously known as the Bureau, back in the good old days,
which is within the Department of Commerce. NIST ensures that
the technology and standards we use every day are of high
quality and are reliable. The work of NIST scientists impacts
almost every citizen of this country, as experts at NIST have
studied, measured, or improved services and products including
cars, mobile phones, roads, furniture, CD players, shoes,
houses, fire prevention, drinking water, and air quality.
The vital standards and measurements provided by NIST are
usually behind-the-scenes support that goes unnoticed by
everyday consumers. For example, when you make a call on your
cell phone, it works only because NIST developed and maintains
the standards and measurements for the chips and circuits
inside the phone and because NIST helped developed the
standards that allow different service providers the different
types of phones to communicate with one another.
However, NIST is becoming even more important to the future
of our industries, their competitiveness, and our national
security. NIST's scientists are on the forefront of
nanotechnology and cybersecurity research, standards and
measurements for homeland security devices, and equipment for
first responders, and are developing standards for new
electronic voting machines, just to name a few.
Most unfortunately, at a time when we are relying more and
more on NIST, Congress cut last year's appropriation for the
NIST laboratory account by 14 percent, or $49 million below the
Administration's request and five percent below the funding
level that NIST received in 2003. This reduction, coupled with
costs of mandatory pay raises for its employees and regular
inflation over the past several years, has gone beyond cutting
the fat and muscle and has really carved into the bone.
The problem is that NIST consists primarily of its people
and its scientists. With as many as 100 scientists being forced
to take early retirement, buyouts, or lay-offs because of the
funding cuts, we lose valuable experience and expertise that
can not be replaced. I might add that NIST currently has two
Nobel Prize-winning scientists and another who has won the
MacArthur Fellowship, also known as the ``genius grant.'' I bet
her mother is proud of that one. The point is, we can not
afford to lose this world-class talent and service to our
nation.
The Administration has requested an increase of 25 percent,
or $84 million, for NIST's budget. This request, if funded,
will go a long way toward restoring the cuts of fiscal year
2004, and I support this effort 100 percent.
Our distinguished panel of witnesses is here today to
provide specific examples of the role of NIST in their
respective industries and work. The goal of the hearing is to
further inform Members of Congress, especially the
Appropriators and their staffs, about NIST and the critical
need to fund its fiscal year 2005 budget request, as submitted
by the President.
Toward this end, I am pleased to note that a letter
supporting NIST's budget request was signed by a group of more
than 100 businesses, organizations, and academics. That
represents a tremendous effort, and I ask unanimous consent
that this letter be included in the record. Without objection,
so ordered. (See Appendix: Additional Material for the Record.)
Chairman Ehlers. I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our witnesses today as they discuss the vital services that
NIST provides to the Nation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing on the Fiscal Year 2005
National Institute of Standards and Technology Budget: Views from
Industry.
We are here today to talk about one of the Nation's least known but
most critical science programs, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), which is within the Department of Commerce. NIST
ensures that the technology and standards we use every day are of high
quality and are reliable. The work of NIST scientists impacts almost
every citizen of this country, as experts at NIST have studied,
measured, or improved services and products including cars, mobile
phones, roads, furniture, CD players, shoes, houses, fire prevention,
drinking water, and air quality.
The vital standards and measurements provided by NIST are usually
behind-the-scenes support that goes unnoticed by everyday consumers.
For example, when you make a call on your cell phone, it works only
because NIST developed and maintains the standards and measurements for
the chips and circuits inside the phone, and because NIST helped
develop the standards that allow different carriers' services and
different types of phones to communicate with one another.
However, NIST is becoming even more important to the future of our
industries, their competitiveness, and our national security. NIST
scientists are on the forefront of nanotechnology and cyber security
research, standards and measurements for homeland security devices and
equipment for first responders, and developing voluntary standards for
new electronic voting machines--just to name a few.
Most unfortunately, at a time when we are relying more and more on
NIST, Congress cut last year's appropriation for the NIST laboratory
account by 14 percent, or $49 million below the Administration's
request, and five percent below the funding level that NIST received in
2003. This reduction, coupled with costs of mandatory pay raises for
its employees and regular inflation over the past several years, has
gone beyond cutting the fat and muscle and has really carved into the
bone.
The problem is that NIST consists primarily of its people and its
scientists. With as many as 100 scientists being forced to take early
retirement, buyouts, or lay-offs because of the funding cuts, we lose
valuable experience and expertise that cannot be replaced. I might add
that NIST currently has two Nobel prize-winning scientists and another
who has won a MacArthur Fellowship (also known as the ``genius
grant'')--I bet her mother is proud of that one. The point is--we
cannot afford to lose this world-class talent and service to our
nation.
The Administration has requested an increase of 25 percent, or $84
million, for NIST's budget. This request, if funded, will go a long way
toward restoring the cuts of Fiscal Year 2004, and I support this goal
100 percent.
Our distinguished panel of witnesses is here today to provide
specific examples of the role of NIST in their respective industries
and work. The goal of the hearing is to further inform Members of
Congress, especially the Appropriators and their staffs, about NIST and
the critical need to fund its Fiscal Year 2005 budget request as
submitted by the President.
Toward this end, I am pleased to note that a letter supporting
NIST's budget request was signed by a group of more than 100
businesses, organizations and academics. That represents a tremendous
effort, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the
record.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today as
they discuss the vital services that NIST provides to the Nation.
Chairman Ehlers. I am pleased now to recognize the late
Mark Udall, the gentleman from Colorado, Ranking Member of this
committee. And the Chair now recognizes him for purposes of
making a statement.
Mr. Udall. I thank the Chairman, as long as the record
reflects that late means I am late in a temporal sense, not
late in my presence here on the planet.
I do want to take the opportunity to thank the panel and
welcoming them here for this morning's hearing. Chairman Ehlers
has already outlined NIST's importance to the Nation's economy
and industrial base. I would also like to remind everyone that
NIST's standards and measurement activities are at the cutting
edge of research. On a modest research budget during the past
10 years, NIST's researchers have been awarded two Nobel Prizes
and a MacArthur Foundation grant. I don't know of any federal
agency that can match this impressive track record.
I would like to move on to the issue of NIST lab funding.
This committee is well aware of the importance of NIST to
commerce and competitiveness. This panel of witnesses
highlights the support NIST has among industry, but NIST is not
well known in Congress, nor is its importance to our economy
well understood. As a result, NIST has been an easy target for
cuts in tight budget times. Cuts made in the fiscal year 2004
omnibus appropriations bill were especially devastating.
The Committee has worked to get outside groups to express
their support for NIST, and it has been successful. Two recent
letters not only express support for NIST's programs, but also
advocate substantive increases for its budget as well. I
continue to be concerned that the Committee has taken no
official position on NIST funding. The Committee has not moved
a comprehensive authorization bill. We have fallen into the
habit of authorizing NIST activities by subject with little
follow up on whether NIST has the money to fulfill its new
obligations.
In the 107th and 108th Congresses, we have passed nine laws
that significantly add to NIST's mission. They are the Help
America Vote Act, the National Construction Safety Team Act,
the Enterprise Integration Act, the Patriot Act, the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, the Federal
Information Security Management Act, the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act, the Cybersecurity Research and Development
Act, and the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.
Generally, these bills authorize no additional funds for these
new activities, or when there is authorization, no funds have
been appropriated. In fiscal year 2005, four of these bills
authorize more than $100 million in funding: it was not
reflected in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
The main reason for today's hearing is to raise the
visibility importance of NIST in Congress. NIST's problems have
frequently been attributed to the appropriations process, but I
have to tell you I don't believe this is entirely true. Our
committee, and I share the responsibility with all of the
Members of the Committee, has not done all that it could do to
ensure that NIST has the funds to meet the obligations that
this committee has set forth. We need to take our
responsibility as an authorizing committee seriously and move
authorizing legislation that sets out spending limits and
priorities for NIST. Unless this committee takes a more active
legislative role, I fear that NIST is likely to suffer from the
same processes that resulted in severe budget cuts and
termination of NIST employees in fiscal year 2004.
Reading through the testimony of today's witnesses only
reinforces my belief that NIST is underfunded, so what I hope
to learn today is what is the appropriate level of funding for
NIST and what should NIST be doing to support industry but
can't because of budget limitations.
So again, let me thank the witnesses for taking the time to
appear before the Subcommittee today. Your appearance speaks to
the importance that you and the organizations you represent
place on NIST. I hope that the Science Committee will follow
your example. Welcome, and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing.
Chairman Ehlers has already outlined NIST's importance to the
Nation's economy and industrial base. I would also like to remind
everyone that NIST's standards and measurement activities are at the
cutting edge of research. On a modest research budget, during the past
ten years NIST researchers have been awarded two Nobel Prizes and a
MacArthur Foundation Grant. I don't know of any federal agency that can
match this impressive track record.
I'd like to move on to the issue of NIST lab funding. This
committee is well aware of the importance of NIST to commerce and
competitiveness. This panel of witnesses highlights the support NIST
has among industry.
But NIST is not well-known in Congress, nor is its importance to
our economy well understood. As a result, NIST has been an easy target
for cuts in tight budget times. Cuts made in the FY04 Omnibus
appropriations bill were especially devastating.
The Committee has worked to get outside groups to express their
support for NIST, and it has been successful. Two recent letters not
only express support for NIST programs, but also advocate substantive
increases for its budget as well.
I continue to be concerned that the Committee has taken no official
position on NIST funding. The Committee has not moved a comprehensive
authorization bill. We have fallen into the habit of authorizing NIST
activities by subject--with little follow-up on whether NIST has the
money to fulfill its new obligations. In the 107th and 108th
Congresses, we have passed nine laws that significantly add to NIST's
mission.
They are:
the Help America Vote Act;
the National Safety Team Construction Act;
the Enterprise Integration Act;
the Patriot Act;
the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act;
the Federal Information Security Management Act;
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act;
the Cyber Security Research and Development Act; and
the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.
Generally, these bills authorize no additional funds for these new
activities, or when there is authorization, no funds have been
appropriated. In FY05, four of these bills authorize more than $100
million in funding that was not reflected in the FY05 budget request.
The main reason for today's hearing is to raise the visibility and
importance of NIST in Congress. NIST's problems have frequently been
attributed to the appropriations process--but I don't believe this is
entirely true.
The Science Committee has not done all that it could do to ensure
that NIST has the funds to meet the obligations that this committee has
set for it. We need to take our responsibility as an authorizing
committee seriously and move authorization legislation that sets out
spending limits and priorities for NIST. Unless this committee takes a
more active legislative role, NIST is likely to suffer from the same
process that resulted in severe budget cuts and termination of NIST
employees in FY04.
Reading through the testimony of today's witnesses only reinforces
my belief that NIST is woefully under-funded. So what I hope to learn
today is--
What is an appropriate level of funding for NIST?; and
What should NIST be doing to support industry, but can't
because of budget limitations?
I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to appear before
the Subcommittee today. Your appearance here speaks to the importance
that you and the organizations you represent place on NIST. I hope the
Science Committee will follow your example.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Udall. And I should also
mention that Mr. Udall has the pleasure of representing
Boulder, among other places. Boulder is, of course, home to a
very important part of NIST's laboratory research activities.
It is also a wonderful place to live.
If there is no objection, all additional opening statements
submitted by the Subcommittee Members will be added to the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael Honda
I thank Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Udall for holding this
important hearing, and I thank the witnesses for taking the time to
come here today to express the importance of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's (NIST) laboratories to our nation and need
for adequate funding to support the measurement and standards needs of
the U.S. economy.
NIST's laboratories conduct research in a wide range of physical
and engineering sciences, including building and fire research,
chemical sciences and technology, electronics and electrical
engineering, information technology, manufacturing engineering, and
materials science and engineering. The labs are among the only
federally supported resources able to respond to pressing industry
needs for measurement methods, tools, data, and technology.
NIST is also the home to several extramural programs involving the
private sector. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) funds research
and development projects with industry, and the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program provides technical assistance necessary to
keep small and medium-sized manufacturers on the cutting edge.
Unfortunately, funding levels have been insufficient to support
NIST's missions. Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget cuts of 5.2 percent from
FY03 mean missed cost savings to industry and reduced industrial
competitiveness, staff reductions, missed improvements in homeland
security and public safety, missed benefits to public health, and
missed developments and improvements in basic science. NIST has had to
eliminate the Information Technology Laboratory's Computer Security
Expert Assistance Team, which deals with cyber security, and the
funding levels were reduced for three NIST laboratories that have
critical contributions to make to the development and support of a
nanotechnology industry in the United States. Increased funding for
NIST could enable the completion of delayed cyber security activities
as well as the development of wireless security and cryptographic
standards for mobile devices. Support for nanotechnology work by NIST
labs could be increased, and equipment purchased that will establish
the Advanced Measurements Laboratory as a world-class facility.
Funding cuts and policy changes have also greatly impacted
extramural programs. The FY04 appropriation for MEP cut the program by
more than 60 percent, which means that more than half of the MEP
centers may have to close, and the FY05 budget request maintains
funding at the reduced level. And the FY05 budget request eliminates
entirely the Advanced Technology Program, which seeks to help companies
advance promising technologies by bridging the gap between the research
laboratory and the marketplace.
As U.S. manufacturing jobs move overseas, it is more important than
ever for us to invest in the infrastructure here at home to support
these activities. NIST, which supports companies in so many different
ways, is the perfect place to make that investment, and I believe that
Congress and the President should do all we can to ensure a healthy
NIST budget now and in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lincoln Davis
Good morning, all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
the opportunity for us to discuss the National Institute of Technology
and Standards this morning.
Industry works with NIST in several ways. Of particular importance
to my district is the Manufacturing Extension Program. Small
manufacturers wishing to modernize improve productivity, and increase
efficiency can seek assistance through NIST's nationwide Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program.
In Tennessee, NIST has an MEP Partnership serving firms throughout
Tennessee through five regional offices. Rural manufacturers depend on
assistance through these and other programs for support. MEP centers
are located in every state to offer local manufacturers assistance with
a variety of technical and business problems.
We should do all that we can to support the MEP and other programs
like it. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and distinguished witnesses
and guests, I thank you for this opportunity today.
Chairman Ehlers. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses, but before I do so, I would also like to
introduce a distinguished member of the audience, Mr. Arden
Bement, who currently is wearing two hats, one on each head, as
he guides both NIST and the National Science Foundation, either
one is a very daunting job, and he is handling both well. We
are pleased to have you step away from your NSF duties and come
here for this hearing, Mr. Bement.
The witnesses--I will go in order here. First is Mr. Daryl
Hatano. He is the Vice President for Public Policy for the
Semiconductor Industry Association, which in my lifetime,
semiconductors have gone from curiosities to a very, very
important industry. Next, we have Ms. Deborah Grubbe. She is
the Corporate Director for Safety and Health at DuPont,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Ms. Grubbe is also a
member of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology,
better known by its acronym VCAT, an advisory committee
established by National Institute of Standards and Technology
Act. Next, we have Dr. Thomas Cellucci, who is the President
and Chief Operating Officer at the Zyvex Corporation, a
nanotechnology company located in Richardson, Texas. Dr.
Cellucci has worked for several technology companies. Next, we
are pleased to have Mr. James Jasinski, who is Vice President
of Federal and State Systems for Cogent Systems, a biometrics
company headquartered in South Pasadena, California. Cogent
Systems has worked with NIST on the development of biometrics
for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology, also known by its acronym, U.S.-VISIT, program. And
finally, Mr. John Biechman, who is the Vice President for
Government Affairs for National Fire Protection Association,
better known by its acronym, NFPA. NFPA works with NIST on
standards for equipment for firefighters and first responders,
and many people are surprised to find out that NIST plays such
an important role in fire prevention and the study of fires,
but actually, they owe part of their existence to the problem
when Baltimore nearly burned down because fire departments
coming from all over the country to help with the major fire
couldn't fit their hoses onto the hydrants in Baltimore,
because we didn't have a standard for fire hydrants in this
country. And that was a dramatic illustration of the importance
of standards and of NIST. Perhaps we need another barn-burning
fire to awaken the public as to the importance of NIST today.
As our witnesses should know, I believe you have been
informed, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each,
after which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes
each to pose questions. I would appreciate it if you could
summarize your statements in five minutes, and I am certain
during the rest of the session, you will have opportunity to
amplify your statements, if you wish.
We will start with Mr. Hatano and hear his testimony first.
STATEMENT OF MR. DARYL G. HATANO, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC
POLICY FOR THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hatano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. My name is Daryl Hatano, and I am Vice
President for Public Policy for the Semiconductor Industry
Association. I would like to begin by thanking the Science
Committee and this subcommittee for your work to promote
research in this country. In particular, I would like to thank
Chairman Boehlert and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson for
their leadership in circulating a letter supporting the
Semiconductor Focus Center Research program, as well as the
Members of this committee who have agreed to sign this letter
this Friday as it circulates. Under the focus center program,
the industry matches Defense Department funds for semiconductor
research at 30 universities across this country. This program
complements the NIST work that I will be discussing today.
As you know, semiconductors are the enabling technology
behind the Information Age. The industry's ability to
continually manufacture chips that are better, faster, and
cheaper is driving productivity and creating jobs throughout
our economy. Propelling the ever-expanding role of
semiconductors in our economy is the ever-shrinking transistor.
The transistor is the basic building block within the
semiconductor chip. For over three decades, the industry has
followed Moore's Law, which states that we can double the
number of transistors on each chip every 18 months. A decade
ago, we were able to integrate thousands of transistors on each
chip, and today, we can integrate millions, if not billions, of
transistors on a single silicon chip.
Semiconductors are the most complex structures manufactured
on this planet. If we were to get a semiconductor chip and
magnify it to be the size of this hearing room, each circuit on
that chip would be about the size of a period on the written
statement in front of you. We are integrating millions of these
transistors in each chip, and we are producing millions of
chips, resulting in a phenomenal number of transistors that we
are producing worldwide.
One way to demonstrate the number of transistors that we
are producing worldwide is to tell you that in the time that
this coin is in the air, we just produced 60 billion
transistors around the world. That is a lot of computing power.
To continue to pack more transistors on each chip, industry
experts around the world have published the International
Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. This roadmap identifies
the technical barriers that are confronting us for the next 10
to 15 years, at which time we will have reached the physical
limits of our current semiconductor chip making technology. I
might add that the first meeting of this roadmap process was at
the Boulder NIST facility. This roadmap also explores emerging
devices that will replace our current chips when we reach those
physical limits.
One important set of technical challenges is in the area of
metrology. There are dozens of types of measurements required
to manufacture a semiconductor chip. These measurements are not
only the obvious one of length, or nanometers, but also include
measurements such as a material's electrical characteristics,
the ratio of the height to the width in a trench, the
nanotrenches that we etch onto semiconductor circuits, and the
size of defective pores that are hidden within thin layers of
materials.
NIST is the leader in chip metrology research, having made
a number of contributions in recent years. Two examples of
excellent NIST research relate to the measurement of the
roughness of the edge of the lines that we etch on
semiconductor circuits and the distortion of images that are
created when light passes through Calcium Fluoride. Both of
these are key issues in our industry, and are described further
in my written testimony.
The problem is that NIST's budget has not kept pace with
today's needs. Three indications of the shortfall are: first,
NIST's spending on semiconductor research has only increased 15
percent in the last decade, while the semiconductor industry's
total investment in R&D has increased 145 percent; second, a
detailed analysis of our roadmap estimated that over $100
million was needed to meet the roadmap challenges, while the
total worldwide research fell well short of what was required;
three, NIST's lithography equipment can etch patterns with
feature sizes of only one micron, while the current industry
standard is about 1/8 of that length, and it continues to
shrink.
The SIA supports the Administration proposal for increased
spending at the NIST laboratories, and specifically $25 million
to equip the AML and $16 million for advances in manufacturing,
including $4 million for semiconductor nanometrology. We would
also encourage that these budget increases should complement
increased NSF and Defense spending for university research.
Finally, this committee might consider adding language related
to NIST similar to the language in last year's House
Appropriations Report for NSF, which encouraged the NSF to
increase research aimed at the challenges outlined in the
semiconductor roadmap.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hatano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daryl G. Hatano
Good afternoon, my name is Daryl Hatano and I am Vice President for
Public Policy for the Semiconductor Industry Association. This morning
I would like to
describe the U.S. semiconductor industry and the
technical challenges it faces; and
highlight the importance of NIST metrology research
to insure that the industry can continue to drive American
economic growth.
The Exponential Increase in Transistors Drives Economic Growth
The semiconductor industry employs 226,000 people across the U.S.
and contributes $41 billion to U.S. GDP. However the industry's real
impact is due to its role in creating the enabling technology behind
computers, telecommunications, consumer electronics, and the Internet.
The industry's ability to continually manufacture chips that are
better, faster, and cheaper is driving increased productivity and
creating more jobs throughout the economy.
Propelling the ever expanding role of semiconductor's in our
economy is the ever shrinking transistor. The transistor is the basic
building block within the semiconductor chip. For over three decades
the industry has followed Moore's Law, which states that the number of
transistors on a chip will double every eighteen months. A decade ago,
we were able to integrate thousands of transistors on each silicon
chip. Today we can integrate millions of transistors on each chip.
Cramming millions of transistors on each chip makes semiconductors
the most complex structures manufactured today. To get an idea of how
precisely the features on each chip are placed, image drawing a map of
New York City that is so accurate that you can identify features on
each street that are only 1.5 inches long--and this map is only the
size of a postage stamp.
By integrating millions of transistors on each chip, and by
producing those chips by the millions, we estimate that today about 30
billion transistors are produced worldwide every second.
The International Roadmap for Semiconductors sets a Timetable for
Technology Advances
To continue to pack more transistors on each chip, over 800 hundred
of chip experts around the world contribute to ``The International
Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors'' (ITRS). The North American
participation of the ITRS is under the auspices of the SIA, and NIST
participates in the ITRS metrology workshops--in fact one of the first
meetings of what is now the ITRS was held at NIST's Boulder, Colorado
facility.
The ITRS identifies the milestones that will need to be reached in
all aspects of semiconductor manufacturing for technology trends such
as Moore's law to continue. For example, microprocessor transistor gate
lengths--a critical dimension that affects the processor's speed--must
decrease from 37 nanometers in 2004 to 18 nanometers in 2010 and 7
nanometers in 2018 if microprocessors are to continue to increase in
speed. (Note: a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A human hair is
100,000 nanometers in width, and a red blood cell is 5,000 nanometers
in width.) If these and other milestones identified in the ITRS are
reached, microprocessors would be three times faster.
The ITRS also finds that we are beginning to reach the fundamental
limits of the materials used in the planar CMOS process, the process
that has been the basis for the semiconductor industry for the past 30
years. By introducing new materials into the basic CMOS structure and
devising new CMOS structures, further improvements in the CMOS process
can continue for the next ten to fifteen years, at which time it
becomes evident that most of the known technological capabilities of
the CMOS device structure will approach or have reached their limits.
In order to continue to drive information technology advances, it
becomes necessary to investigate new devices that may provide a more
cost-effective alternative to planar CMOS in this timeframe.
The ITRS lists the technical barriers at each stage of production
that must be overcome if we are to continue to enjoy the benefits of
chip technology advances. One important set of challenges is in the
area of metrology. New metrology tools and techniques are needed to
accurately perform critical measurements as new materials, processes,
and device structures are introduced. These measurements are not only
the obvious measurement of linear dimensions (nanometers) but also
includes measurements such as a material's electrical characteristics,
the aspect ratio of nanoscale trenches etched into chips, the thickness
of oxide layers that are only a few atoms thick, and the size of pores
inside of thin layers of materials.
The ITRS metrology chapter lists 112 measurements and controls and
the required accuracy levels that must be met at specific points in
time if semiconductor technology is continue to advance at current
rates from now until 2018. The ITRS also identifies areas where further
research is needed. For example, for 59 of these 112 measurements there
are currently no known manufacturing solutions for the levels of
accuracy that will be required on the factory floor in 2009--a mere
five years away.
NIST's Ability To Meet The Challenges Has Not Kept Pace With Advance Of
Technology
NIST is the leader in semiconductor metrology research, and has
made a number of contributions in recent years. Recently a NIST paper
on the measurement of the roughness of the edges of the lines etched on
semiconductor chips, a major topic of concern identified in the ITRS,
won a best paper award from the International Society for Optical
Engineering. NIST was also the first to note that light traveling
through Calcium Fluoride (CaF) lenses at different speeds created
distorted images, a problem for semiconductor makers as shorter
wavelengths of light were used to expose patterns on semiconductor
chips.
While these contributions are notable and underscore NIST's
potential, NIST's level of effort has not kept pace with needs brought
on by technology advances. Three indications of the shortfall are
provided by comparisons with industry R&D spending, detailed analysis
of ITRS needs, and an evaluation of NIST tools.
NIST spending on semiconductor research has only increased 15
percent since 1995. As an indication of the growing technical challenge
as circuits continue to shrink, the semiconductor industry's total
investment in R&D increased 145 percent during that period. See Figure
1.
Another indication that NIST spending is well below what is
required comes from a detailed analysis of the ITRS by the
Semiconductor Research Corporation that estimated that 480 person-years
should be devoted each year to meet the metrology challenges; at a cost
of over $100 million dollars. The total worldwide research currently
aimed at these challenges is only a fraction of this amount. A third
indication that NIST spending has fallen short of what is required is
to compare the current lithography equipment at the NIST lab with
current market requirements. Lithography, the ability to use exposures
of light through masks to etch microscopic patterns on silicon, is a
key step in semiconductor manufacturing. NIST's lithography equipment
can etch patterns with a feature size of one micron, while the current
industry standard is approaching 0.13 microns (or 130 nanometers), and
sub-100-nanometers devices are coming soon.
SIA Recommendations to Congress for NIST and Other Research Agencies
The SIA supports the Administration proposal for increased spending
at the NIST laboratories, and specifically $25.5 million to equip the
Advanced Measurement Laboratory, $15.6 million for advances in
manufacturing (including $4 million for electronics and semiconductor
nano-metrology). These increases represent a good first step toward
achieving the funding level at NIST that was envisioned when the NIST
Office of Microelectronics was established in 1994. SIA would encourage
NIST to insure that a portion of this increase is devoted to funding
for university research in metrology.
The budget increases at NIST aimed at metrology issues should be
done in concert with increased appropriations for other programs in
semiconductor research at universities. SIA supports significant
increases in the NSF budget, and in particular funds focused on
nanoelectronics research as authorized in the Boehlert-Honda Act.\1\
The House Appropriations report for NSF noted the importance of
semiconductor advances to continued productivity growth in our economy
and encouraged the NSF to increase research aimed at the challenges
outlined in the ITRS.\2\ The House Science Committee might consider
similar language in its report to support increased alignment of NIST
research and the priorities identified by the ITRS. SIA also urges
Congress to appropriate $20 million for the Defense Department's
Government-Industry Cosponsorship of University Research program.\3\
This program funds the Semiconductor Focus Center Research Program at
30 universities across the country.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act;
Public Law No: 108-153.
\2\ ``From within the Engineering Directorate, the Committee is
concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of current
complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process technology and
that this will have significant implications for continued productivity
growth in the information economy. The Committee encourages NSF to
examine the challenges and time lines outlined in the most recent
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors and, where
feasible, increase research support in this area accordingly.'' House
Rpt. 107-740--Departments Of Veterans Affairs And Housing And Urban
Development, And Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2003.
\3\ The Government-Industry Cosponsorship of University Research
(GICUR), program element number 0601111D8Z, is funded through the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
\4\ For further information on the Focus Center Research Program,
see http://fcrp.src.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Spending on Chip Research Benefits the Federal Budget
While the SIA recognizes that this is a difficult budget year for
the Congress, it is instructive to view the research costs required to
meet the ITRS timetables from the perspective of the costs to future
federal budgets if the timetables are not met. On both the revenue and
spending side, the government receives a multifold return on its
investment.
The CBO budget deficit models assume that even a 0.1 percent/year
increase in GDP growth results in a $236B smaller federal deficit over
2005-2014, largely due to increased tax revenues collected. In its
projection of a $1.8 trillion deficit for FY 2005-2014, the
Congressional Budget Office assumes the 0.7 percentage point surge in
productivity that was experienced from 2001 to 2003 does not continue.
The CBO does recognize, however, that
``. . .Computers and other information-related technologies
are fundamentally transforming the way the economy works, much
as the electric dynamo and the internal combustion engine did
in previous eras. If that hypothesis is valid, productivity
growth might remain faster than its historic average during a
transition period that could last several decades.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Source: ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-
2014'' Congressional Budget Office, January 2005.
Economists have noted the acceleration of semiconductor product
cycles from three years to two years as a key driver of the surge in
productivity. Because of the ubiquity of semiconductors in our economy,
the acceleration or deceleration of semiconductor technology advances
has a pronounced impact on productivity growth and GDP. The federal
dollars needed at NIST, NSF, DOE, and DOD to support the basic research
at universities and national labs related to semiconductors and
nanoelectronics are small relative to the economic growth and added tax
revenues that would ultimately accrue to the government.
It addition to the benefits from economic growth, and added taxes,
that the government receives from semiconductor technology advances, it
is also possible to quantify the benefits that government (Federal,
State, and local) receives as a consumer of semiconductors. The Bureau
of Economic Analysis at the Department of Commerce has data indicating
that the government sector of the economy purchased $8.9 billion of
computers in 2003, but that they would have had to spend $106 billion
for that same amount of computing power if they had to pay 1994 prices.
The cumulative benefit from technology improvements and resulting price
declines from 1994 to 2003 is $363 billion of ``free'' computing.
Summary
For the past five decades, semiconductors have become ever faster,
better, and cheaper, and today are a major driver of growth in economic
productivity. As we approach the physical limits of the chip making
technology that we have used for the past 30 years, technology advances
are becoming ever more difficult. Metrology challenges are among the
most important as they cut across all of the manufacturing stages in
chip production. Basic research funded by the Federal Government is
needed if we are to continue to advance our current technology as well
as find a replacement technology before the aforementioned physical
limits are reached. Congress must increase the NIST laboratory budget
if the country is to continue to enjoy the benefits of every increasing
semiconductor capabilities at ever decreasing costs.
Biography for Daryl G. Hatano
Daryl Hatano is the Vice President of Public Policy for the
Semiconductor Industry Association. In that capacity, he has
responsibilities for the Association's international trade, legislative
and workforce strategy programs.
SIA's international trade program has included the implementation
of the U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Agreements of 1986, 1991, and 1996--
which contributed to an increase in foreign share in Japan from 8.5
percent in 1986 to over 30 percent today; and the 1998 elimination of
European semiconductor tariffs--which has saved U.S. producers and
their customers $1.5 billion. SIA's legislative successes include the
passage of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, the National
Cooperative Research Act, and the American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act. SIA's workforce strategy program seeks to
insure a qualified workforce to support industry growth with activities
at the K-12, technician, and engineering levels. Mr. Hatano has been
with SIA since 1983.
SIA is currently urging China's WTO compliance, increased federal
support for university R&D, improved intellectual property protection,
and export control reform. SIA is also an active participant in the
World Semiconductor Council. SIA's full public policy program can be
found at sia-online.org.
Mr. Hatano has an undergraduate degree in political science and
economics from the University of California at Davis, a Juris Doctorate
from the U.C. Davis Law School and a Master's in Business
Administration from U.C.-Berkeley's Haas School of Business
Administration; and is a member of the California Bar. Mr. Hatano has
published articles in the area of business and public policy in the
California Management Review, the American Journal of Business Law, and
Managerial Planning. Mr. Hatano currently serves on the board of
directors for the U.S. Information Technology Office in Beijing, the
Advisory Board to the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (a
National Science Foundation funded program that is working with
community colleges across the country to train high tech technicians),
the Japan Society of Northern California, the Cost Recovery Action
Group (a coalition to encourage capital investment in the U.S. through
accelerated tax depreciation). Mr. Hatano is also a member of the
Foundation Board of Trustees for the University of California at
Merced, the first new research university built in the U.S. this
century.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Ms. Grubbe.
STATEMENT OF MS. DEBORAH L. GRUBBE, CORPORATE DIRECTOR FOR
SAFETY AND HEALTH, DuPONT, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE; MEMBER OF THE
NIST VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Grubbe. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Udall,
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today on the importance of the work that the
National Institute of Standards and Technology undertakes to
support our nation's commerce and our national security. My
firm, the DuPont Company, appreciates the Subcommittee's
leadership on helping to assure the competitiveness of our
country's business community. My name is Deborah Grubbe, and I
am a chemical engineer, currently the Corporate Director of
Safety and Health. I have 26 years of experience with DuPont in
managing engineering technology and manufacturing projects.
Today, I would like to focus my remarks on how NIST helps
to ensure the U.S. business competitiveness by focusing on four
DuPont examples, one each from MEP and ATP and two from the
NIST labs. I personally believe that our nation--the Nation
that leads in measurements and in standards reputation will,
over time, be the leader in international commerce.
My first example of how NIST is helping DuPont grow is with
our Surfaces business, the Corian product, and the NIST
Manufacturing Extension Partnership that this Congress has
supported.
DuPont manufactures Corian in sheet form at a 1,000-person
site in Buffalo, New York. However, that raw sheet is a long
way from the finished countertop in your kitchen or bathroom.
The finished countertop is produced for DuPont by a network of
independent fabricators across the country. The manufacturing
capability among these fabricators varies greatly. As you can
imagine, quality and training become very important as one
tries to grow the business. DuPont is trying to broaden its
market for the Corian product and is relying on these
fabricators to deliver new products. How can DuPont improve the
efficiency and delivery predictability of the finished Corian
product when these key people in our supply chain work for a
smaller company that may not have the resources to train their
employees?
DuPont approached this problem in two ways. First, we
invited MEP representatives to present business cases for
change at several national fabricator conferences. MEP
personnel developed a consistent scope of work, methodology,
and project tracking capability for hundreds of the Corian
fabricators. Currently, MEP has seven active projects with
fabricators around the country. DuPont has agreed to contact
300 more to support MEP. In a growing business like Corian,
this supports job growth and creation in many communities.
My second example is how NIST laboratories support DuPont
and other businesses. As you may know, DuPont is a leading
provider of automotive paints and finishes for many of the
world's major car and truck manufacturers. Pigment and paint
technologies change over time, and over recent years, NIST has
led a highly successful collaboration with DuPont and other
industry leaders to develop new measurement standards and
procedures for color and appearance. The NIST standards support
new industry-wide ASTM standards, which become the standards
required for manufacture. The one question that we need to ask
is rhetorical, yet important: ``What would be the effect on
DuPont earnings in this important market if this standards
process was being run by another government?''
The third example focuses on the expertise of the NIST
physics laboratory. DuPont is a leading provider of membrane
materials for PEM, that is polymer electrolyte membrane, fuel
cells. NIST works closely with DuPont and the fuel cell
industry because of NIST's unique capability to internally
image operating fuel cells using neutron radiography. The data
provided by NIST is of such fundamental importance to DuPont
and to our customers in our ongoing research and development.
In my fourth example, I would like to talk about the
Advanced Technology Program, or ATP. ATP is an extremely
valuable program to industry, and I would like to express a
strong concern for the proposed elimination of this program in
fiscal year 2005. A number of times in the past years, the
Administrative Branch has sought to significantly reduce or
eliminate ATP funding, and each time, Congress has had the
wisdom to reinstate this valuable program. Through partnerships
with the private sector, ATP's early investment is accelerating
the development of innovative technologies that promise
significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits to the
Nation. In addition to the ATP financial benefit of 50 percent
funding of early stage, high-risk technology development, ATP
processes foster rigorous peer reviews that validate the
technological value.
Since 1993, there have been over 10 ATP collaborations with
DuPont in the areas of superconductivity, electronic displays,
and other areas of electronic technologies. ATP has been very
helpful where the development costs and risks are very high for
one company to bear alone. I urge you not to eliminate this
program.
NIST currently suffers from the disease of the ``non-funded
mandate.'' Work to support Homeland Security is more
ineffective today because the Department of Homeland Security
has the money yet needs the time to build the scientific
expertise. DHS is indeed making important contributions to
homeland security, but it has insufficient funding to support
the full range of its needs and other homeland security areas.
However, NIST has the expertise, yet has no funding to do the
work that it could do to support DHS. DHS and NIST need to work
more closely together, and the appropriators need to make sure
that the funds are allocated to the agency that can effectively
accomplish the work.
I understand that the last NIST comprehensive authorization
was in the late 1990's. Our world changed on September 11,
2001, and I suggest the Subcommittee lead an effort to
reexamine that authorization in light of the support that NIST
can bring to making our homeland more secure and to strengthen
our nation's commerce.
Additionally, DuPont has identified profitable business
growth areas that require measurements and standards
capabilities and infrastructure support in the areas of: one,
materials science, bio-based materials; two, robotics; three,
characterization of multi-component films; and four,
standardizing protocols for thermoelectric measurements.
NIST has the technical expertise and has some programs in
this area, but funding constraints limit NIST's ability to meet
industry's level of demand. These are areas where NIST can,
with the right support, hasten the technical development now
underway within various companies.
NIST is a strategic weapon in the DuPont innovation engine
of the future. We need NIST to position our country
competitively for the 21st century. No where else in the world
can we find the specific measurement and special infrastructure
needed to measure what we need to measure.
The NIST role is obviously broader than DuPont. It is
essential that we, as leaders in the U.S. scientific and
technical community, recognize NIST as a key leader in our
nation's innovation engine. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Udall,
Members of the Subcommittee, leading edge research fosters
innovation, and innovation creates jobs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Grubbe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah L. Grubbe
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of the work
that the National Institute of Standards and Technology undertakes to
support our nation's commerce and our national security. My firm, the
DuPont Company, appreciates the Science Committee's leadership on
helping to assure the competitiveness of our country's business
community. My name is Deborah Grubbe, and I am currently the Corporate
Director of Safety and Health for DuPont. I am a chemical engineer by
training and have 26 years of experience with DuPont in managing
engineering technology and manufacturing projects. I currently sit as a
member of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, or VCAT.
The VCAT gives guidance to NIST on strategies and direction.
NIST is the only U.S. Government agency chartered to help U.S.
business. Today I would like to focus my remarks on how NIST helps to
ensure U.S. business competitiveness by using five (5) DuPont examples.
I personally believe that the Nation that leads in measurements and in
standards reputation will, over time, be the leader in international
commerce.
DuPont has been in business for 202 years, and safety and technical
innovation have been, and remain, essential to our growth. We started
as a manufacturer of black powder for the U.S. Government in 1802,
operations that by their very nature require a focus on safety and
technology. During the middle part of the 20th century, we built on
that history of good safety and innovative technology to support the
United States and its allies during World War II. Our discovery of
nylon made safer parachutes for D-Day, and our development of
Neoprene, a synthetic rubber, was used in allied war machines. In
today's war on terrorism, our Kevlar fiber is found in bulletproof
vests, and our Sentry-glas technology is protecting the occupants of
the Pentagon and civilians around the world.
DuPont is a $25 billion global corporation that is working hard to
remain competitive. Fifty percent of our sales are in the United
States.
I would now like to cover the five examples. My first example is
from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP. My fifth example
is about the Advanced Technology Program, or ATP. Examples two, three
and four are from the NIST laboratories, which are often overlooked,
yet are essential to NIST and its value proposition.
My first example of how NIST is helping DuPont grow is with our
Surfaces business, Corian, and the NIST Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) that this Congress has supported.
DuPont manufactures Corian in sheet form at a 1000 person site in
Buffalo, New York. However, that ``raw'' sheet is a long way from the
finished counter top in your kitchen or bathroom. The finished counter
top is produced for DuPont by a network of independent fabricators
around the country. The manufacturing capability among these
fabricators varies greatly. As you can imagine, quality and training
become very important as one tries to grow the business. DuPont is
trying to broaden its market for the Corian product and is relying on
these fabricators to deliver our new products. How can DuPont improve
the efficiency and delivery predictability of the finished Corian
product when these key people work for a smaller company that may not
have the resources to train their employees?
DuPont approached this problem in two ways: First, DuPont invited
MEP representatives to present business cases for change at several
national fabricator conferences. MEP personnel developed a consistent
scope of work, methodology and project tracking capability for hundreds
of the Corian fabricators. Currently MEP has seven active projects
with fabricators around the country. DuPont has agreed to contact 300
more to support MEP. In a growing business like Corian this supports
job growth and creation in many communities.
My second example is of how NIST laboratories support DuPont and
other businesses. As you may know, DuPont is a leading provider of
automotive paints and finishes for many of the world's major car and
truck manufacturers. Pigment and paint technologies change over time,
and over recent years NIST has led a highly successful collaboration
with DuPont and other industry leaders to develop new measurement
standards and procedures for color and appearance. The NIST standards
support new industry-wide ASTM standards, which become the standards
required for manufacture. The one question to ask is rhetorical, yet
important, ``What would be the effect on DuPont earnings in this
important market if this standards process was being run by another
government?''
The third example refers back to my earlier mention of Kevlar, the
fiber used in bulletproof vests, and a collaboration with the NIST
Building and Fire Research laboratory (BFRL). The National Institute of
Justice has identified BFRL's Polymeric Materials Group as the prime
research laboratory for studying the degradation of ballistic fibers.
This degradation is important in the ability of the vest to protect its
wearer. DuPont Kevlar is a ballistic fiber, and research
collaborations between the NIST and DuPont scientists are in progress
at our Richmond, Virginia, plant site.
The fourth example focuses on the expertise of the NIST Physics
Laboratory. DuPont is a leading provider of membrane materials for PEM
(polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cells. NIST works closely with
DuPont and the fuel-cell industry because of NIST's unique capability
to internally image operating fuel cells using neutron radiography. The
data provided by NIST is of fundamental importance to DuPont and to our
customers in our ongoing research and development to make fuel cells
more reliable and more efficient.
For my fifth example, I would like to talk about the Advanced
Technology Program. ATP is an extremely valuable program to industry,
and I would like to express a strong concern for the proposed
elimination of this program in FY 2005. A number of times in the past
years, the Administrative Branch has sought to significantly reduce or
eliminate ATP funding, and each time Congress has had the wisdom to
reinstate this valuable program. ATP is a unique program in the
Government R&D portfolio. Through partnerships with the private sector,
ATP's early investment is accelerating the development of innovative
technologies that promise significant commercial payoffs and widespread
benefits to the Nation. ATP focuses on industry and industry sets the
priorities. In addition to the ATP financial benefit of 50 percent
funding of early stage, high-risk technology development, the ATP
process fosters partnerships among industry and with academic
institutions. Additionally the rigorous peer review adds significant
validation of the technology value. Accelerating development of
advanced technologies is a key way to maintain U.S. competitiveness and
U.S. jobs.
ATP is an important part of the DuPont technology partnership with
the Federal Government, and since 1993 there have been over 10
collaborations in the areas of superconductivity, electronic displays,
and other areas of electronic technologies. ATP has been very helpful
where the development costs and risks are very high for one company to
bear alone. I urge you not to eliminate this program.
These are five of many examples of value that NIST brings to
DuPont. The world-class NIST special facilities and technical
capability is not available elsewhere. Even our university research
partners rely on NIST measurements and facilities. There are other
governments attempting to emulate the NIST model, and we need to be
certain to assure that the United States of America remains the leader
in scientific measurements and standards. This leadership comes with a
price, and that price is our commitment and increased funding.
NIST currently suffers from the disease of the ``non-funded
mandate.'' Work to support Homeland Security is more ineffective today
because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the money, yet
needs the time to build the scientific expertise. DHS is indeed making
important contributions to homeland security, but it has insufficient
funding to support the full range of DHS needs and other homeland
security areas. However, NIST has the expertise, yet has no funding to
do the work that it could do to support DHS. DHS and NIST need to work
more closely together, and the appropriators need to be sure the funds
are allocated to the agency that can effectively accomplish the work.
I understand that the last NIST comprehensive authorization was in
the late 1990's. Our world changed in September, 2001, and I suggest
the Subcommittee lead an effort to reexamine that authorization in
light of the support that NIST can bring to making our homeland more
secure and to strengthen our nation's commerce.
Additionally, DuPont has identified profitable, business growth
areas that require measurements and standards capabilities and
infrastructure support:
1) Materials science--bio-based materials (e.g., clothes from
corn)
2) Robotics
3) Characterization of multi-component films (packaging)
4) Standardizing protocols for thermoelectric measurements.
NIST has the technical expertise and has some programs in these
areas, but funding constraints limit NIST's ability to meet industry's
level of demand. These are areas where NIST can, with the right
support, hasten the technical development now underway within various
companies.
NIST is a strategic weapon in the DuPont innovation engine of the
future. We need NIST to position our company competitively in the 21st
century. No where else in the world can we find the special
infrastructure needed to measure what we need to measure.
The NIST role is obviously broader than DuPont. It is essential
that we, as leaders in the U.S. scientific and technical community,
recognize NIST as a key to our nation's innovation engine. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, leading edge research fosters
innovation, and innovation creates jobs. History has shown that the
jobs are usually created close to the point of innovation, reference
Silicon Valley and other High Tech Corridors around our nation. NIST
has been and remains essential to DuPont and to other businesses, both
large and small. Thank you for this opportunity to address you today,
and thank you for your support of NIST. We are all working to ensure
that the generations that follow us will enjoy the high standard of
living that is a benefit of an innovative society.
Biography for Deborah L. Grubbe
Deborah Grubbe is Corporate Director--Safety and Health for DuPont.
She is accountable for leading new initiatives in global safety and
health for the corporation. Deb was formerly the Operations and
Engineering Director for DuPont Nonwovens, where she was accountable
for manufacturing, engineering, safety, environmental and information
systems for a $1 billion business with eight manufacturing facilities
around the world. Deborah is also a past director of DuPont
Engineering's 700-person engineering technology organization. Her 15
different assignments in 26 years range from capital project
implementation through manufacturing management and human resources.
Deborah currently sits on the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology. She has recently
served as a consultant to the Columbia Shuttle Accident Investigation
Board, and has been appointed to the new NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel. She has worked with the National Academy of Sciences as a member
of the oversight committee for the Demilitarization of U.S. Chemical
Weapons Stockpile. Deborah is on the Board of Directors of the
Engineering and Construction Committee of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, and is on the Business Management Advisory
Committee of Wilmington College. Deborah currently serves as a member
of the Purdue University School of Chemical Engineering New Directions
Executive Committee. She was the first woman and youngest elected
member on the State of Delaware Registration Board for Professional
Engineers (1985-1989). During her tenure on the State Board, she was
the Chair of the Law Enforcement and Ethics Committee. She is active
with the Society of Women Engineers, and is a former board member of
the Women in Engineering Program Advocates Network (WEPAN). Deborah has
been featured in the books ``Engineering Your Way to Success'' and
``Journeys of Women in Science and Engineering--No Universal
Constants.''
She has been active in the Delaware community; as former president
and board member of the Chesapeake Bay Girl Scout Council, and
currently sits on their Northern President's Advisory Council. Deborah
is also a board member of the Delaware Zoological Society. Deborah is a
past board member of the YWCA of New Castle County and the Delaware
State Board of Pharmacy. In 1994, Deborah was named an outstanding
Chemical Engineering Alumna by the Purdue University School of Chemical
Engineering, and is a recipient of the 1986 Trailblazer Award from the
Delaware Alliance of Professional Women. In 2002, she received the
Purdue Distinguished Engineering Alumni Award, and was named Engineer
of the Year in Delaware.
Deborah was born in suburban Chicago and graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Chemical Engineering with Highest Distinction from Purdue
University. She received a Winston Churchill Fellowship to attend
Cambridge University in England, where she received a Certificate of
Post-Graduate Study in Chemical Engineering. She is a registered
professional engineer in Delaware, and is the engineer of record for
DuPont. She is married to James B. Porter, Jr., and resides in Chadds
Ford, Pennsylvania.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Dr. Cellucci.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS A. CELLUCCI, PRESIDENT, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, ZYVEX CORPORATION, RICHARDSON, TEXAS
Dr. Cellucci. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and
the Members of this distinguished Committee for inviting me
here today. I applaud you and all of the Members of the Science
Committee who have taken the time to confront the challenges
that will ensure our nation's future. We wouldn't be gathered
here today if not for your efforts.
I am Tom Cellucci, President of Zyvex Corporation. Thank
you for giving me the honor of sharing my views on the impact
of NIST on our nation.
As President of one of the world's leading nanotechnology
companies, I have the rare opportunity and privilege to play a
role in shaping this emerging field. I have had the honor and
distinct privilege of meeting with several respected Members of
Congress about how NIST has enabled this new nanotechnology
revolution. I am especially grateful for the vision of
President Bush, Senator George Allen, Senator Ron Wyden, and
Representatives Boehlert, Ehlers, and Gordon in passing the
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development bill into
law this past December 2003.
As Members of the Science Committee know, we have made
great strides by passing this bill. However, much work still
needs to be done to ensure that it will be the United States
who continues as the world leader in science, technology, and
business.
It is no surprise that America leads the world in
technological innovation. Much of our leadership position and
the jobs generated for Americans can be directly attributable
to NIST. NIST fulfills a vital role in bringing the promise of
nanotechnology to the American people. NIST is responsible for
developing the measurements, standards, and data critical to
private industry's development of products for potential market
that is estimated to exceed a trillion dollars in the next
decade.
Through NIST's measurements and standards laboratories,
they are helping the private sector to create more high-
quality, high-paying jobs. Their commitment allows us to live
in the best country in the world.
NIST works with organizations in the private sector to
develop consensus standards, which are needed by United States'
industry for delivering and improving products and services
sold throughout the world. NIST's weights and measurements
services are the basis for ensuring the efficiency and fairness
of more than $5 trillion in sales, roughly half of the United
States economy. Industry standards are critical in emerging
fields, such as nanotechnology. Right now, one of the key
issues facing the nanotechnology arena is the need for
standards for nanoscale materials and tools.
As someone who possesses approximately 20 years experience
as a senior director and executive of high technology firms, I
can relay many instances where the assistance of NIST
laboratories was invoked. To put it simply, there is no test
and measurement body on earth that has the credibility,
experience, technical depth, and the thoroughness of the NIST
laboratories.
Many of the divisions I was responsible for relied on NIST
traceable standards and information on emerging trends for
tighter tolerances and higher resolution requirements for
industry. If you mentioned to your potential customers that
NIST was either consulted, used, or the originator of certain
data you presented, you could rest assured that it was never
questioned and provided your firm with instant credibility of
one's products, services, and/or processes.
I am often invited to give keynote speeches and advice to
universities, such as MIT and Harvard, and trade organizations,
such as the NanoBusiness Alliance and SEMATECH. Many times, I
find myself directing them towards the NIST labs to retrieve
materials and information in order to assist them in
identifying technical trends and needs.
As I previously mentioned, there is no entity, that I know
of, that has the technical depth, practical industrial
experience, and vision in helping United States industry look
at new trends in test and measurement.
I was never a big supporter of government spending on R&D
funding for any industry. I subscribed to the philosophy, and
still do today, that private industry's role is to bring about
innovation based on market drivers. Yet September 11 had a
powerful effect on the way I think about the urgency of
innovation. It is all too apparent to me that leading
technology holds the key to our fight on terrorism at home and
abroad. As you are acutely aware, American lives are at stake,
and we need to do everything humanly possible to protect the
lives of our American soldiers, first responders, and citizens.
There are over 2,700 law enforcement officers who have been
spared either death or disabling injury as a result of NIST-
developed standards for bullet-resistant vests. Zyvex's NIST-
ATP has allowed us to develop instrumentation that DARPA has
identify as being critical to our armed forces and
laboratories. I am very proud of this and all of the Zyvex
employees who are so diligently working on this project.
While some mistakenly characterize the NIST-ATP as
``corporate welfare,'' I am here to tell you that Zyvex is a
real-world example of a small business that is leveraging this
program to commercialize nanotechnology today. We are today
creating new markets and new jobs. As anyone who knows me will
attest, I am known for profitably growing companies, not
wasting money. NIST is our business partner, not simply an
organization that gives us money. We jointly share the cost and
the responsibility of bringing this new technology to the
marketplace.
Thanks to our ATP, we have hired 15 new employees in 2003
and plan to hire at least another 25 new employees in 2004. We
support researchers at universities in Texas, Colorado,
Michigan, Massachusetts, California, Virginia, and New York. I
have grown increasingly wary as I travel all over the world and
see how aggressive countries such as China, Taiwan, Japan, and
the European community are funding initiatives very similar to
our NIST. I ask myself: ``What type of legacy will we be
leaving to our future scientists and engineers if we decrease
NIST's budget?'' I also ask: ``What kind of economic
opportunities will our children have if the United States loses
its industrial competitiveness to other countries?''
Many people will argue that with the war, these cuts are
necessary. I ask: ``How can we continue to fight a war on
terrorism without developing the critical technology that is
needed in the next decade?'' We are not only at war with
terrorism, we are in the midst of a significant worldwide
battle for technical prowess to sustain and increase our
technological leadership in the world, the greatest economic
battle of our lifetime.
Anything but increasing this funding is surrendering our
economic prosperity and giving up on our promise to our
children, a promise to higher life. Mr. Chairman and Members of
this committee, I want to personally thank you for your time
and for this honor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cellucci follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Cellucci
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Members of this
distinguished Committee for inviting me here today. I applaud you,
Chairman Boehlert, Representative Ehlers, Representative Udall, and all
the members of the Science Committee who have taken the time to
confront the challenges that will ensure our nation's future. We
wouldn't be gathered here today, if not for your efforts.
I'm Tom Cellucci, President of Zyvex Corporation. Thank you for
giving me the honor of sharing my views on the impact of NIST on our
nation.
As President of one of the world's leading nanotechnology
companies, I have the rare opportunity and privilege to play a role in
shaping this emerging field.
Zyvex's vision is to become the leading worldwide supplier of
tools, products, and services that enable adaptable, affordable, and
atomically precise manufacturing. Jim Von Ehr founded Zyvex in 1997 and
we now employ over 50 people. We introduced 10 new products in 2003,
and are on target to introduce an estimated 12 additional products and
double our revenues in 2004.
I've had the honor and distinct privilege of meeting with several
respected members of Congress about how NIST has enabled this new
nanotechnology revolution. I'm especially grateful for the vision of
President Bush, Senator George Allen, Senator Ron Wyden and
Representatives Boehlert, Ehlers and Gordon in passing the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research & Development Bill into law this past December
2003. Jim Von Ehr was present when he signed it.
As Members of the Science Committee know, we've made great strides
by passing this bill. However, much work still needs to be done to
ensure that it will be the United States who continues as the world
leader in science, technology, and business.
NIST
It's no surprise that America leads the world in technological
innovation. Much of our leadership position and the jobs generated for
Americans can be directly attributable to NIST. NIST fulfills a vital
role in bringing the promise of nanotechnology to the American people.
NIST is responsible for developing the measurements, standards, and
data critical to private industry's development of products for a
potential market that is estimated to exceed a trillion dollars in the
next decade.
NIST brings about this innovation because NIST is committed to
maximizing innovative technologies to our national economy through its
labs, its Advanced Technology Program, and by working with the private
sector to spur innovation and entrepreneurship.
Through NIST's measurements and standards laboratories, they are
helping the private sector to create more high-quality, high-paying
jobs.
Their commitment allows us to live in the best country in the
world.
NIST and Industry Standards
NIST works with organizations in the private sector to develop
consensus standards, which are needed by United States' industry for
delivering, and improving products and services sold throughout the
world.
NIST's weights and measurements services are the basis for ensuring
the efficiency and fairness of more than five trillion dollars in
sales--roughly half of the U.S. economy. Industry standards are
critical in emerging fields such as nanotechnology. Right now, one of
the key issues facing the nanotechnology arena is the need for
standards for nanoscale materials and tools. The NIST labs provide the
accuracy, reliability and international recognition for the
measurements and measurement-related operations that make up
approximately three percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. In a
marketplace that is increasingly global in nature, we know that 80
percent of all global merchandise trade is being influenced by testing
and other measurement-related requirements of regulations and
standards. More and more, U.S. companies cannot deal in this
marketplace without NIST. For example, if NIST had not been involved,
U.S. manufacturers of in vitro devices (IVD) wouldn't been able to meet
new European Union regulations We now have more than 60 percent of a $7
billion market.
NIST's commitment to developing the best standards through its
scientists and engineers, in tandem with industry leaders, is paramount
for U.S. businesses to rapidly deploy these new novel nanotechnology
products and services in this global economy.
NIST Labs
As someone who possesses approximately 20 years experience as a
senior executive and Director of high technology firms, I can relay
many instances where the assistance of NIST laboratories was invoked.
To put it simply, there is no test and measurement body on earth
that has the credibility, experience, technical depth, and the
thoroughness of NIST laboratories.
Many of the divisions I was responsible for relied on NIST
traceable standards and information on emerging trends for tighter
tolerances and higher resolution requirements for industry.
Companies like Newport Corporation, a leading manufacturer of
laser/electro-optic equipment; Coherent, Inc., the leader in industrial
and scientific lasers; Etec, Inc., a worldwide leader in MEMS test and
measurement equipment; and Edmund Industrial Optics, a global leader in
the optics industry relied on NIST traceable standards and insights on
new trends for tighter tolerances and resolution requirements for
industry. All relied on NIST expertise.
If you mentioned to your potential customers that NIST was either
consulted, used, or the originator of certain data you presented, you
could rest assured that it was never questioned and provided your firm
with instant credibility of one's products, services, and/or processes.
I'm often invited to give keynote speeches and advice to
universities such as MIT and Harvard, and trade organizations such as
the NanoBusiness Alliance and SEMATECH. Many times, I find myself
directing them towards the NIST labs to retrieve materials and
information in order to assist them in identifying technical trends and
needs.
As I previously mentioned, there is no entity that I know of, that
has technical depth, practical industrial experience, and vision in
helping United States industry look at new trends in test and
measurement.
Zyvex's NIST-ATP
I was never a big supporter of government spending on R&D funding--
for any industry. I subscribed to the philosophy (and still do today)
that private industry's role is to bring about innovation based on
market drivers. Yet September 11th had a powerful effect on the way I
think about the urgency of innovation. It's all too apparent to me,
that leading technology holds the key to our fight on terrorism at home
and abroad. As you're acutely aware, American lives are at stake and we
need to do everything humanly possible to protect the lives of our
American soldiers, first-responders, and citizens.
There are over 2,700 law enforcement officers who have been spared
either death or disabling injury as a result of NIST-developed
standards for bullet resistant vests. Intelligent machines influenced
by NIST's real-time control system, a concept for controlling
automation, have helped to keep U.S. troops out of harm's way by
clearing land mines. The military and other users have saved millions
of dollars thanks to NIST's contributions to the testing of antennas
used for communications to and from satellites.
Zyvex's NIST-ATP has allowed us to develop instrumentation that
DARPA has identified as being critical to our armed forces and
laboratories. I'm very proud of this and all the Zyvex employees who
are so diligently working on this project.
Through our assembly and manufacturing technology we have been able
to develop a very inexpensive Mini-SEM prototype that will, for the
first time, allow soldiers and scientists to use this kind of
microscope on samples in the field--instead of having to take the
sample to the microscope in a lab. Detecting biohazards in minutes--
rather than hours--will not only save time--it will save lives.
While some mistakenly characterize the NIST-ATP as corporate
welfare, I'm here to tell you that Zyvex is a real-world example of a
small business that is leveraging this program to commercialize
nanotechnology--today. We are today creating new markets and new jobs.
As anyone who knows me will attest, I'm known for profitably
growing companies, not wasting money. NIST is our business partner, not
simply an organization that gives us money. We jointly share the cost
and responsibility of bringing this new technology to the marketplace.
Thanks to our ATP, we've hired fifteen new employees in 2003; and
plan to hire, at least, another twenty-five new employees in 2004. We
support researchers at universities in Texas, Colorado, Michigan,
Massachusetts, California, Virginia, and New York. We're developing a
new manufacturing technology that will drive innovation in the silicon
micro-machine domain. The impact of parallel micro-assembly on the
broader economy will be in the billions of dollars and will ultimately
create thousands of high value manufacturing jobs--here in America.
I've grown increasingly wary as I travel all over the world and see
how aggressive countries such as China, Taiwan, Japan, and the European
Community are funding initiatives very similar to NIST. I ask myself--
what type of legacy will we be leaving to our future scientists and
engineers if we decrease NIST's budget? I also ask myself--what kind of
economic opportunities will our children have if the United States
loses its industrial competitiveness to other countries?
Many people will argue that with the War, these cuts are necessary.
I ask how can we continue to fight a war on terrorism without
developing the critical technology that is needed in the next decade?
We're not only at war with terrorism, we are in the midst of a
significant world-wide battle for technical prowess to sustain and
increase our technological leadership in the world--the greatest
economic battle of our lifetime.
Anything but increasing NIST funding is surrendering our economic
prosperity and giving up on our promise to our children--a promise for
a higher quality of life.
Once again, I'd like to commend you and your colleagues--for your
courage, your patriotism, and your vision.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this committee--I want to personally
thank you for your time and for this honor.
Biography for Thomas A. Cellucci
Tom Cellucci is the President and Chief Operating Officer at Zyvex
Corporation. He is also a member of Zyvex's Board of Directors.
Cellucci is internationally recognized for Cellucci Associates.
Inc. (Wellesley, Massachusetts), a highly successful management
consulting firm he founded in 1999 which was primarily engaged in
raising capital and providing strategic business services to high-tech
global firms.
Cellucci has extensive senior executive experience in profitably
growing businesses. Most recently, he was President and CEO of Etec,
Inc. (Peabody, Massachusetts) and Executive Vice President and General
Manager of Integrated Dynamics Engineering (Westwood, Massachusetts and
Raunheim, Germany). Prior to joining Integrated Dynamics Engineering,
Cellucci held the position of Senior Director at the Newport
Corporation (Irvine, California). He was also a Research Chemist for
Shell Oil Company (Houston, Texas), where he was also elected President
of Shell's then eighteen-thousand member Employee Association.
Cellucci has authored or co-authored over 97 articles on
nanotechnology, environmental disturbance control, laser physics,
photonics. MEMS test and measurement and high-tech sales and marketing.
Cellucci was also a co-author of the ANSI Standard Z136.5 entitled
``The Safe Use of Lasers in Educational Institutions'' published in
March 2001.
Cellucci currently serves on several Boards, most notably on the
Board of Edmund Industrial Optics (Barrington, New Jersey), the Laser
Institute of America, and serves as special advisor to the Board of
MANCEF (Micro- and Nano-Commercialization Education Foundation). In
addition, Cellucci is a member of the NRSC Senatorial Trust--a small
group of distinguished business and political leaders nominated by
United States' Senators to meet on a regular basis with the highest-
ranking members of the government. such as the President of the United
States, Senators, and Legislators.
Cellueci is a member of the James Smithson Society (Smithsonian),
the American Chemical Society, the Autism Advisory Council for the
Autism Alliance for the MetroWest region of Massachusetts, and the Big
Brothers-Big Sisters Program.
Cellucci holds a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from the University of
Pennsylvania, an MBA from Rutgers University, and a B.S. in Chemistry
from Fordham University. He has also attended several senior executive
courses at the Wharton School of Business. MIT's Sloan School of
Business, and the Harvard Business School, where he is often invited to
speak on nanotechnology.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Mr. Jasinski.
STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES J. JASINSKI, VICE PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL
AND STATE SYSTEMS FOR COGENT SYSTEMS, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Jasinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to make a short presentation and discussion about the
contributions that NIST has made to the United States in our
War on Terrorism and in the homeland security front.
There are two areas, which I would like to focus in on. One
is the NIST standards that have been developed for AFIS
systems, automatic fingerprint identification systems, which we
all benefit on a daily basis from. During the 1980's and the
1990's, I worked for the FBI. And during that time, there were
a number of AFIS systems that were being developed. Each system
did not inter-operate, could not communicate with one another.
Because of NIST's leaderships, the systems today are able to
communicate with one another. For example, if somebody is
arrested in Los Angeles or in London, England or in Moscow, all
use the NIST-established AFIS standards. And we are able to
search each other's databases to make the determination whether
or not somebody is particularly wanted or should be
particularly suspicious to the United States or should be held
for some other reasons. Those standards are commonly known as
the NIST standards and every AFIS system that is deployed
around the world is in compliance with the NIST standards, and
every procurement that goes on the street always references
compliance with NIST. So its impact has been universal around
the world.
The second area in which I think that you can see
immediately the benefit of NIST is the recent deployment of the
U.S.-VISIT program. When U.S.-VISIT was first being proposed,
there was a--the system that was being supported was a two-
print system. That two-print system had a lot of critics to it.
That two-print system, allegedly, was going to have a number of
inaccuracies both in identifying somebody and also falsely
identifying somebody. During the April/May time frame period of
last year, when the system was first being conceived
operationally, NIST was able to step in and validate the system
that with a two-print system, could achieve a high degree of
reliability and a very small degree of selectivity so that the
person was not falsely accused.
In addition, as we speak today, NIST is working with
Homeland Security in that U.S.-VISIT program in trying to
establish threshold standards and trying to determine at what
level do you have to set the biometric matching capability so
that you would maximize the performance of the systems. That
system is constantly evolving, and it is NIST's leadership in
working with Homeland Security in establishing those standards
so that the system can be optimized.
NIST has shown itself not simply in those two systems but
in--also in providing leadership around the world. Just
yesterday afternoon, we had visitors in from Hong Kong who are
deploying a new system for their citizens where they are going
to issue cards. Those cards are going to obtain the biometrics.
That biometric is going to be used in trying to establish your
ability to vote, your right to charges, your right to the
subway system, your right to withdraw books from the library.
They met with NIST yesterday to discuss what works in the
biometric field and what standards should be established. They
were--we walked away from that meeting, and they were extremely
impressed with the insight and knowledge that NIST was able to
present to them. Cogent is working with Hong Kong in this and
it clearly benefits us in trying to establish those standards.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jasinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of James J. Jasinski
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee on
Science to review Cogent's experience working with the NIST, to
articulate the success derived from that association, and to identify
how that success can continue and in fact grow.
Cogent is an American company founded 14 years ago by U.S.
citizens. Our corporate headquarters is in South Pasadena, California
with affiliated offices in five countries. From our corporate
headquarters we have deployed Automated Fingerprint Identification
Systems (AFIS) at the national, state and local levels. This includes
over 45 foreign countries, such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Bulgaria,
Russia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Honduras, Algeria, and dozens of
others providing us a presence on five continents. Traditionally, four
major AFIS companies have serviced this market. Of these four
companies, one other is U.S. based and the remainder are foreign
corporations.
The focus of this statement is on two primary topics:
1) NIST's role in establishing fingerprint inter-operability
within the United States and around the world;
2) NIST contributions to the universally acknowledged
successful deployment of the U.S.-VISIT Program.
1) Inter-operability Standards
The history of AFIS technology in many ways mirrors that of
technology in general, i.e., the evolution from proprietary standards
to open standards. Just like in the 1970s, the purchase of one
information mainframe system meant the inability to inter-operate with
that of a competitor, the AFIS users found themselves in a similar
situation. This meant that someone arrested in one State could not have
his fingerprints automatically searched against fingerprint records of
another State. This clearly was unacceptable. Therefore, when the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertook its Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) project, open
standards had to be developed to ensure that upon the completion of
IAFIS the States and the FBI would be able to routinely exchange
fingerprint information.
NIST provided the nexus between the system developers and the end
users of the systems that allowed the development and acceptance of
open standards for exchanging fingerprint information. Today, in the
AFIS community, all major government sponsored AFIS acquisitions
require any proposed AFIS solution must be ``NIST Compliant.'' ``NIST
Compliance'' is shorthand for approximately 15 standards dealing with
fingerprints--from the header, to the image quality, to compression, to
today the complete palms. These standards have been openly reviewed,
developed, and deployed by all parties working in this area and have
been universally accepted. As a result, around the world today, AFIS
systems are routinely inter-operable at the system level. While, these
standards allow the systems to work together, at the same time they
protect the uniqueness of each system and the investment each company
has put into its technology.
As illustrative of the success of those NIST standards, while I was
in the FBI, I chaired Interpol's AFIS Expert Working Group. At that
time Interpol was acquiring an AFIS system for itself and for
interfacing with over 100 members. The solicitation for that
procurement required ``NIST Compliance'' for any vendor proposed
system. The value of such a system is proven everyday when countries
around the world exchange their fingerprint data with one another--all
because of NIST leadership.
2) U.S.-VISIT
For many years the U.S. has been aware of the problem of tracking
visitors to the United States. As part of the initial efforts to try
and establish a process for such a tracking system, Homeland Security
announced on April 29, 2003 a plan to begin establishing a biometric
system to perform this task by the end of 2003. In establishing this
system, a number of issues sprung up; how many fingers were necessary--
from 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, should they be rolled or flat captures, can a
database of mixed flat and rolled fingers be accurately searched,
operational accuracy, as well as a host of other related issues.
At this time, a series of inaccurate, wrong, deceptive and self-
serving representations were made by a number of alleged biometric
experts. Each sounded authoritative and knowledgeable, but each had
more theory than reality in their pronouncements. This complicated any
decision to proceed with this too often delayed national defensive
system for if the critics were right, millions of dollars would be
wasted. Fortunately, NIST helped resolve the outstanding issues and
validate operational feasibility so U.S.-VISIT could be deployed.
Before discussing NIST's role in resolving these issues, please let me
take a few moments to provide some background information on AFIS
systems.
In assessing the performance of a system you look at four major
factors:
1) Accuracy;
2) Database size/composition;
3) Number of fingers searched;
4) Throughput--how many comparisons can be done in a set time.
In AFIS technology accuracy is a term of art. Accuracy has two
sides--finding someone in a database (called ``reliability,'' ``Type1
Rate,'' ``True Acceptance Rate'' (TAR)) and falsely finding someone
(called ``selectivity, Type 2 Rate,'' ``False Acceptance Rate'' (FAR).
These accuracy rates are a set of measures used to understand the
performance of the system with respect to the system's ability to
correctly process the presences or absence of an individual's
fingerprints in a database. Therefore, the terminology is as follows:
Accuracy is the measure of ability of the system to
correctly match the fingerprints of an individual to that
person's fingerprints in the database.
Type 1 Errors, also known as False Reject or False
Non-Match is the measure of the system's inability to correctly
match a set of fingerprints to a mating set of fingerprints
that are in the database.
Type 2 Errors, also known as False Accept or False
Match is the measure of the system's inability to correctly
differentiate between a set of fingerprints and another set of
fingerprints within a database.
AFIS systems are impacted by the amount of data, the quality of the
images, and whether what is stored is a rolled or flat fingerprint
image. The size of the database determines how much time is necessary
to determine if there is or isn't a match. In making that comparison,
the quality of the images either being searched or stored significantly
affect search results. As NIST has stated, 35 bad images are not as
valuable as one good one. Then, for most AFIS systems, whether the
image is rolled or flat or whether they are intermixed will impact
search results.
Additionally, how many fingers that are searched will impact system
accuracy. As a general rule, more quality images are better than fewer
quality images, but results are not linear. That means one cannot
project that a search of a finger with certain results proportionately
improves with each additional finger searched. Rather accuracy is a
function of many factors such as the design of the search process, the
quality of the images, the time for the search, etc.
Finally, AFIS systems performance are impacted by throughput--how
many transactions do you need to process within a set amount of time.
Frequently, to achieve greater throughput accuracy is sacrificed.
In assessing the performance of an AFIS system the above factors
must be balanced with the application environment in determining
effectiveness.
When U.S.-VISIT was announced, a number of companies, foreign and
domestic, immediately attacked the biometric approach. Their
representations were presumptive and unfounded, but because of their
position in the market, given credibility. As the U.S.-VISIT system was
being developed, with the proposed approach to expanding the proven
technology used by DHS for its IDENT program, a number of inaccurate
reports and statements became common in newspapers, trade periodicals,
and commentaries. For example, a leading system integration
organization issued a White Paper to DHS that made the following
comments regarding the plan to use IDENT technology for U.S.-VISIT:
``However, the current IDENT system has not been proven to
meet the IDENT system Accuracy & Type 1 Error Rate requirements
and further is believed to fall substantially below expected
Accuracy. The engineering estimate values used in this
evaluation were 75 percent accuracy, 25 percent Type 1 Error
Rate and 0.6 percent Type 2 Error Rate.''
Such assessments raised unfounded concerns about the viability of
the biometric deployment for U.S.-VISIT, for if accurate would
essentially mean an unacceptable low reliability rate of 75 percent
with every fourth traveler being sent to a secondary examination.
The above White Paper then went to state:
``As the current IDENT system is not meeting Accuracy and Type 1
Error Rate specification,.. . .The spreadsheet contains an engineering
estimate of the real values. The engineering estimate is based on an
extrapolation of the independent Criminality Study as well as a small
ad-hoc system test.. . .This data was not truly randomly sampled and
had a quantity of low quality data removed from the set. Those factors
skewed the results indicating higher Accuracy than is believed to be
truly available in the current environment. A further indication that
the values were skewed was that these values taken together as an
``operational point'' represent a significantly higher capability than
is currently published as state-of-the-art for commercially available
AFIS systems. These ``best measured'' values were not developed from a
realistic test and are not believable.. . .
This report was based upon based the Systems Integrator's knowledge
of their AFIS system's capability coupled with a flawed mathematical
calculation in the referenced criminality report.
That criminality report was published in October 2000 entitled
IDENT/IAFIS IQS. Cogent had no participation in that report and as a
result the basis for the number comes from IAFIS results of a two
fingers search using the
IAFIS system--not the Cogent IDENT system. Of particular note, in
calculating the number of Cogent errors, the report did not convert the
measured Type 2 error rate of .16 percent correctly as they did not
convert the type 2 percentage to a decimal number.
In addition, other alleged experts were heavily spreading
misinformation on the proposed system's overall performance and falsely
charging an inability to grow with the workload.
Given this context, NIST was tasked to validate the system--from
accuracy to throughput. NIST timely performed its mission. However, in
performing this testing NIST stretched its equipment capacity as shown
by running CPUs at 100 percent utilization, storage contentions,
database management software licenses, and using old chemical labs
instead of computer facilities to perform the testing. Their successful
testing of the system and repudiation of the many false statements
allowed the scheduled deployment to proceed as announced. This means a
safer America for with the system in place, since January 5, 2004,
hundreds of individuals have been identified for further investigation
prior to their being allowed to enter this country. Some are
subsequently banned from entering, some are arrested and some are
allowed entry, however each determination is made with the greater
certainty than was ever before deemed possible. In fact one Immigration
officer described the system as ``a wonderful Christmas gift.''
Even today, after the successful implementation of U.S.-VISIT, the
same critics who predicted system failure and performance problems
continue to push their less than honest agenda. To be sure, all systems
are a balancing between operational requirements, business procedures,
and acceptable performance characteristics. No one would argue that
more data is better than less data, however the context for that
question is what is the impact to your business processes in acquiring
that additional data, what is its cost, and what are its advantages. In
making those judgment calls, NIST must continue to perform the roll of
the honest broker so that Agencies understand what are the true trade-
offs for the final decision in implementing biometric technology.
For example, with U.S.-VISIT, the decision to capture more fingers
in future applications must trade off the additional equipment and
labor costs in capturing those fingers with the improvements to the TAR
(reliability) and the FAR (selectivity) with less manpower in the back-
end of the system. To date, NIST has shown that the TAR for a two print
system remains constant as the system grows, at least for the limits of
its available database size of about 6 million subjects, while the FAR
rises in a predictable linear fashion. That same testing has shown that
good images are more important for the system's TAR/FAR results than
multiple bad images taken from the same person. Simultaneously, the
testing has shown that more fingers does increase the probability of
obtaining more usable data and that FAR levels can be essentially
maintained as the database grows. Additionally capturing more fingers
allows for sequence checking and is of greater value for latent
searches. All of this is subject to current NIST database sizing
limitations and highlights the continuing important role for NIST in
U.S.-VISIT.
This is but an example of the importance of their role in
validating technology claims and clearly indicates the importance of
increasing and enhancing that role. As technology grows within society
the resources required to validate them correspondingly grow.
Illustrative is the Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (FpVTE)
2003. That evaluation addressed system performance of fingerprint
matching algorithms. It required significant equipment, vast amounts of
data, and knowledgeable personnel to perform the evaluation. Due to
resource limitations the scope of the test was restricted to areas that
NIST could independently validate with its available resources. That
means that the test could measure only targeted areas not total system
performance. And even in performing the targeting testing, because of
resource limitations ranging from equipment to data, the testing could
not empirically validate all of its target performance objectives but
rather had to defer to extrapolations of data.
Cogent believes that if NIST was appropriately funded, NIST can
perform fuller and more robust empirical testing of systems,
technologies, and theories. With that additional funding, instead of
merely testing a target objective, it can perform empirical system
testing of products that could not only demonstrate American
technology, but assist in keeping its leadership by either exposing or
disproving unreliable systems.
Biography for James J. Jasinski
Employment History
Cogent Systems, Inc., Reston, Virginia, Vice President for Federal and
State Systems, May, 2002-Present. Mr. Jasinski is responsible for
Cogent's Federal and State systems. His duties include personnel,
facilities, operations, and performance standards for Cogent's Federal
and State customers. He reports directly to Cogent's Chief Operations
Officer, Ming Hsieh.
DynCorp Systems and Solutions, Chantilly, Virginia, Vice President
Civil Systems, 2000-2002. Mr. Jasinski was responsible for directing a
staff of business development specialists assigned a variety of federal
agencies. He had budgetary and personnel authority with specific goals
and objectives for each employee and agency. During his tenure, his
staff both by employee and agency achieved their assigned objectives.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1978-2000. Mr. Jasinski retired as a
Special Agent and as a member of the Senior Executive Staff, Level 4
with 23 years of service. During his service he had the following
assignments:
IAFIS Program Manager, 1997-2000--This Presidential
Priority Program was the largest development project ever
undertaken by the FBI. The total budget for the program was
8640 million and at its peak had almost 1000 federal and
contract employees working on the project. Its objective was to
convert the FBI's fingerprint identification system of 40
million cards from a semi-automated system into a fully
automated system using specially trained personnel for search
results verification. The primary objective of the system was
to eliminate the 3 million fingerprint card backlog and reduce
the FBI's response time for criminal history searches from
months to 24 hours or less, while processing over 62,000
requests per day. When the system went operational, all
articulated system and operational requirements were either met
or exceeded. Since going operational in July of 1999, the
system has received numerous accolades and accomplishments and
is universally recognized as an unqualified success.
FBI's Chief Contracting Officer, 1984-1997--
Responsible for the management of the FBI's centralized system
for all covert and overt procurements. His duties included
overseeing a staff of over 90 procurement specialists and
attorneys. This staff of professionals was responsible for
fulfilling all the operational procurement requirements of a
large federal agency with full compliance to all federal
procurement regulations.
FBI Litigation Attorney, 1982-1984--Staff attorney
responsible for providing legal counsel to FBI field office
special agents conducting ongoing investigations and
representing the FBI in judicial proceedings. His work included
all aspects of legal litigation and administrative reviews.
FBI Field Office Special Agent, 1978-1982--General
investigative duties ranging from employment background
investigations to criminal and foreign counter intelligence
investigations.
Attorney, 1976-1978--Private practice attorney in New
York State, with a primary focus in contract law and contract
litigation.
Education
Juris Doctor, Albany Law School, Union University, 1976.
Bachelor of Arts, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1973.
Approximately 1700+ hours of Procurement and Program
Management classes while working for the FBI.
Chairman Ehlers. And thank you.
And to end this panel's testimony with a blaze and give a
fiery speech, we turn to the expert on fire, Mr. Biechman.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN BIECHMAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS FOR NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Biechman. Thank you, Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member
Udall, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear
before you today. NFPA is a non-profit organization with a
mission to save lives through education and training, fire
research and analysis, and the development of consensus codes
and standards that are adopted by governmental jurisdictions
throughout the United States and widely used by the Federal
Government.
NFPA's 300 codes and standards are accredited by ANSI and
developed by fire protection engineers, enforcement officials,
architects, the fire service, and other technical experts
participating as volunteers in the consensus process, a process
that Congress has affirmed with the passage of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and OMB clearly
defined in its Circular A-119. And currently, at least 12 NIST
employees participate in the NFPA consensus process committees.
I wish to express NFPA's support for the Building and Fire
Research Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST, and to urge the Committee to ensure adequate
funding for the BFRL and other laboratories in fiscal year
2005. Additionally, we believe that the Committee should
consider reauthorization of the NIST labs to include their
increased duties and responsibilities in a post-9/11 world.
NFPA's relationship with NIST, known at the time as the
National Bureau of Standards, began just over 100 years ago,
following a devastating fire in Baltimore that we heard a
little bit about earlier. Response to the fire came from
departments as far away as New York. However, similar to
communications systems problems encountered on September the
11th, the departments responding to the fire in Baltimore could
not use one another's fire hoses due to differing hose threads.
Following the fire, the Bureau of Standards called upon NFPA
and others to assist in the study of hose couplings. Based on
that research, NFPA adopted its first Standard for Fire Hose
Connections.
Over the past century, NIST has successfully aided in the
knowledge and advancement of fire and building safety measures
that include improvements at many levels of government and
facets of safety. For example, in the area of fire modeling,
the first use of NIST's resources was at an NFPA fire
investigation at the DuPont Plaza Hotel fire in Puerto Rico in
1986. The Fire Research Division of the BFRL has also studied
fires in the Urban/Wildland Interface with research benefiting
those in our rural communities. From this type of research, the
BFRL is able to develop computer fire modeling to help the fire
service better understand fire dynamics, protect occupants and
firefighters, and assist in building safer buildings in the
future.
The State of New York, in its effort to reduce fire deaths
caused by fires ignited by cigarettes, has utilized NIST's
testing protocol to determine the efficacy of the ``fire safe''
cigarette. NIST led an investigation team, including NFPA, to
Kobe, Japan following the 1995 earthquake to study building
collapse, infrastructure, and the fire that followed the
earthquake. The BFRL developed a gas burner to reproduce fire
situations experienced in mattress fires. Further, the CPSC is
now working with NIST to develop a test to identify non-
compliant mattresses in the marketplace that would support an
open-flame standard currently proposed by CPSC.
In an agreement with the U.S. Fire Administration, NIST
research will lead to the development of more effective
firefighter protective clothing and will work to enable the
Department of Homeland Security to continue to adopt the
equipment standards similar to the NFPA standards for
firefighter protective clothing that was recently adopted by
the Department.
It is not enough, however, to simply recount the good works
of NIST. We believe that the BFRL now finds itself in the
position of being asked to do more with less at a crucial time.
This has been asked by the National Construction Safety Team
Act of 2002 to conduct an investigation into the collapse of
the World Trade Center Towers. As part of that investigation,
NIST is working on the causes of building failure and issues,
such as fire and smoke resistance construction. NIST is also
working with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
NFPA, the elevator industry, and others to begin developing the
technical basis for revisions to elevator standards for use in
occupant evacuation and fire service access during emergencies
in high-rise buildings. The Construction Safety Team is also
investigating the deadly fire at the Station Night Club in
Rhode Island.
To date, the Congress has not appropriated funds to enable
the Construction Safety Team to conduct its work. Without
appropriate funding, NIST will not be able to properly train or
equip staff to conduct additional investigations, should the
need arise. Additionally, legislation has been passed by the
House of Representatives and awaits Senate approval
reauthorizing the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program,
the House-passed bill authorizes NIST's Building and Fire
Research Laboratory to become the responsible federal agency
for the program.
Mr. Chairman, there is no other laboratory in the United
States as capable as the NIST Building Fire and Research
Laboratory, conducting research for the public good. I am not
aware of any outside source of funding to conduct such needed
research. The proposed fiscal year 2005 funding for the BFRL
still does not approach the kind of funding necessary to carry
out the added workload of the lab. The consequences of the
budget restrictions this year in NIST have resulted in a
difficult reprioritization of ongoing projects and planned
research being delayed. NFPA trusts that the Congress will
ensure that the labs receive the authority and the funding
necessary to conduct their important business.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address
the Committee, and I would be happy to take questions, if you
have any.
[Statement of Mr. Biechman follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Biechman
Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the Committee,
I am honored to appear before this committee today. My name is John
Biechman and I am Vice President for Government Affairs of the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA is a non-profit organization,
founded more than 100 years ago, with a mission to save lives through
fire and life safety education and training, fire research and
analysis, and the development of consensus codes and standards that are
adopted by governmental jurisdictions throughout the United States and
widely used by the Federal Government.
Today NFPA has approximately 300 codes and standards addressing
safety, each accredited by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and developed by fire protection engineers, enforcement
officials, architects, the fire service and other technical experts all
participating as volunteers in the consensus process. This process
ensures that all interested parties have a say in developing codes and
standards, a process that Congress affirmed and supported with the
passage of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(P.L. 104-113) and the Office of Management and Budget clearly defined
in OMB Circular A-119.
I am here today to express NFPA's support for the Building and Fire
Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST) and to urge the Committee to ensure adequate funding
for the BFRL and NIST's other laboratories in the Fiscal Year 2005
budget. Additionally, we believe that it is appropriate that the
Committee consider reauthorization of the NIST labs to include its
increased duties and responsibilities in a post-9-11 world.
NFPA's relationship with NIST, known at that time as the National
Bureau of Standards, began just over 100 years ago as the result of a
devastating fire in the City of Baltimore, destroying 2,500 buildings
in an 80-block area in the heart of the City. Response to the fire came
from fire departments as far away as Washington, DC, Philadelphia, and
New York City. However, similar to the problems encountered with a lack
of inter-operable communications systems at the World Trade Center
Towers on September 11th, the various fire departments responding to
the Baltimore fire found that they could not use one another's fire
hoses because of Baltimore's hydrant system and differing fire hose
threads from the various departments. Shortly after the fire the
National Bureau of Standards called upon NFPA and others to assist in a
study of hose couplings across the Nation. Based on the research
provided by NBS, the NFPA adopted as national models in 1905 a standard
hose coupling and an interchangeable coupling device for non-standard
hoses. Today the document is recognized as NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire
Hose Connections providing a level of uniformity enabling fire
departments to provide coverage to one another.
Over the past century NIST and the BFRL have successfully aided in
the knowledge and advancement of numerous fire and building safety
measures that include improvements at many levels of government and
facets of safety, for example:
In the area of fire modeling the first major use of NIST's
resources on modeling was an NFPA fire investigation at the DuPont
Plaza Hotel fire in Puerto Rico in 1986. The Fire Research Division of
the BFRL has also studied fires in the Urban/Wildland Interface with
research benefiting those responsible for protecting our rural
communities. From this research the Fire Research Division is able to
develop computer fire modeling to help the fire service better
understand fire dynamics and protect occupants and firefighters, and
assist in building safer buildings in the future.
The State of New York, in its effort to reduce the number of fire
deaths caused by fires ignited by cigarettes, has utilized NIST's
testing protocol to determine the efficacy of ``fire safe'' cigarettes.
NIST led an investigation team, including NFPA, to Kobe, Japan
following the January, 1995 earthquake to study building collapse,
infrastructure and the fire that followed the earthquake.
The NIST BFRL developed a gas burner to reproduce fire situations
experienced in mattress fires. The State of California has passed into
law an open flame standard for mattresses and utilizes the protocol
developed by NIST which will lead to the production of less flammable
mattresses. Further, the CPSC is working with NIST to develop a test to
identify non-compliant mattresses in the market place that would
support a national open-flame standard currently proposed by CPSC.
Following catastrophic events at nightclubs in Rhode Island and
Chicago, NFPA incorporated changes to its codes and standards. Experts
from the BFRL worked within the NFPA code amendment process and ensured
that the changes made to the code were based on sound technical
information. Currently at least 12 NIST employees participate on NFPA
Standards Development Technical Committees.
Current research, under cooperative agreements with the U.S. Fire
Administration, at the BFRL will lead to the development of better and
more scientifically grounded methods of measuring the effectiveness of
firefighter protective clothing in protecting the wearer from burns.
Work such as this will enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
to continue to adopt equipment standards similar to the five NFPA
standards for firefighter personal protective clothing adopted by DHS
earlier this year.
It is not enough, however, to simply recount the many instances
that the good works of NIST and the BFRL have benefited the standards
development outcome at NFPA and elsewhere. We believe that the BFRL now
finds itself in a position of being asked to do more with less at a
crucial time in our nation's history.
NIST's role in firefighter personal protective equipment,
flammability testing, fire modeling and seismic investigation are just
a few examples of NIST's previous work. NIST and its Building and Fire
Research Laboratory have now been tasked by the National Construction
Safety Team Act of 2002 to conduct an investigation into the collapse
of the World Trade Center Towers. As part of that investigation NIST is
working on the causes of building failure and on issues such as fire
and smoke resistant construction. NIST is also working with the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, NFPA, the elevator industry
and others to begin developing the technical basis for revisions to
elevator standards for use in occupant evacuation and fire service
access during emergencies in high-rise buildings.
In addition to the World Trade Center investigation the
Construction Safety Team has also been assigned to investigate the
deadly fire at the Station Night Club in Rhode Island where 100 lives
were lost in the winter of 2003.
To date the Congress has not appropriated funds to enable the
Construction Safety Team to conduct its work. Without appropriate
funding NIST will not be able to properly train or equip staff to
conduct additional investigations should the need arise.
Additionally, legislation has been passed by the House of
Representatives and awaits Senate approval reauthorizing the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), the House passed bill
authorizes NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory to become the
responsible federal agency for program implementation.
Mr. Chairman, there is no other laboratory in the United States as
capable as the NIST Building Fire and Research Laboratory; conducting
research for the public good. I am not aware of any ``outside'' source
of funding to conduct needed research. The proposed FY 2005 funding for
the BFRL, while an increase over this year's budget, still does not
approach the funding necessary to carryout the added workload of the
lab.
The consequences of budget restrictions this year at NIST have
resulted in a difficult reprioritization of on-going projects and
planned research being delayed. NFPA trusts that the Congress,
understanding the importance of the NIST laboratories to our nation's
safety and security will see to it that the labs receive the authority
and funding necessary to conduct their very important business.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to address the
Committee. I will be happy to take questions you may have.
Biography for John Biechman
John Biechman serves as Vice President, Government Affairs for the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). He has more than 25 years
experience in government relations, public affairs and trade
association activities. He serves as the primary advocate for NFPA's
policies, programs and products within the Federal Government and as
information liaison between Congress, federal agencies and Washington-
based allied private sector organizations.
Prior to joining NFPA in March 2001, Biechman served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Biechman's background also includes government relations positions
with the Washington-based Building Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA). Prior to coming to Washington, Biechman served as
Field Representative to former Representative Norman Y. Mineta, in San
Jose, California and served on the City Council in Morgan Hill,
California.
Discussion
Impact of National Institutes of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Funding on Current and Future Developments Within the
Science and Technology Industry
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, to all of you, for your
testimony. It was excellent, and it gives us a good start.
At this point, we will open our first round of questions.
The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. You have
intimated this in your testimony, but I want to get some very
direct statements for you. What would be the impact on your
company or the organization--your organization or the companies
you represent within your organization if NIST did not exist or
if the funding remained stagnant or significantly declined? Mr.
Hatano, we will just go right down the line. What would--how
would it affect you in your industry, your organization, if
NIST ceased to exist or its funding declined?
Mr. Hatano. Our industry has grown because of Moore's Law,
the ability to continue to shrink the transistor. We would not
be able to do that without metrology. If we can't measure it,
we won't be able to make it. So without NIST's activities and
advancing the science and metrology, we would not be able to
continue to increase the number of transistors on the chip and
the subsequent decrease in costs that have allowed us to really
create a lot of other industries downstream.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Ms. Grubbe.
Ms. Grubbe. Quite simply, our business would stop, in my
opinion. One starts to look at the ability to export and the
need for measures and standards to export, the ability to use
the atomic clock for global positioning systems. If you don't
know where your freight is, if you don't know where your
deliveries are, it is very hard to serve customers on a global
basis. So if you take a look at very simple things, it grinds
to a halt or makes it much more difficult. On a development
end, it would definitely slow our ability to create more jobs,
and it would hurt our profitability.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Cellucci.
Dr. Cellucci. From my perspective, there are three items.
We would lose global competitiveness to commercialize
nanotechnology. Secondly, we could not further increase the
development of products and services in the nanotechnology
arena without the much needed nanometrology standards and
measurements we need to get to these very tiny scales. And
finally, there is one trend that everyone around the world
agrees with in manufacturing: tolerances will get tighter and
tighter and resolution requirements higher and higher. And
without consensus standards, this will have a great impact on
our ability to produce goods that people would want to spend
their money on.
Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Jasinski.
Mr. Jasinski. There will be three areas, also. One is that
biometric standards are still evolving, and if NIST isn't there
to provide the leadership, who would be in that position to
provide their leadership? Second is the ability to expose
fraudulent claims, misleading claims. And the third is to
validate the technology.
Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Biechman.
Mr. Biechman. NFPA's codes and standards are based on
scientific evidence. NIST is the entity that really promotes
and studies the scientific evidence. If we didn't have that, we
would be basing a lot of our efforts on simply experience in
the field, and the evidence would come in much more slowly, and
therefore the updated codes and standards would be developed
more slowly.
Industry Suggestions on NIST Budget Increases
Chairman Ehlers. I have another question for the panel as a
whole. And that is can any of you give examples of
technological opportunities currently not being exploited
because of NIST's current funding levels, the fact that they
are not being adequately funded? It is open to anyone who would
wish to comment on that.
Ms. Grubbe.
Ms. Grubbe. Mr. Chairman, in my testimony that is on the
record, and I also spoke to it, we identified four areas where
we saw that if NIST had additionally funding, they would be
able to help us accelerate development and help other
industries accelerate development. One was in material science,
more specifically bio-based materials. This is a new area where
we are using enzymes to take the place in--the corn genome to
take the place of oil and using that as intermediates for
things like fabrics. The second area is in robotics, and NIST
would be helpful in trying to accelerate the process of making
more and more efficient and more cost-effective robots. The
third is characterization of multi-component films, primarily
for the packaging industry and also for the electronics
industry. And fourth is the standardizing of protocols for
thermoelectric measurements. There is not a lot of work going
on in those areas right now.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Dr. Cellucci.
Dr. Cellucci. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In my view, no one is
better prepared than NIST to help in something we are all
familiar with in the papers, and that is creating manufacturing
jobs. A company like Zyvex has a long-term vision to
revolutionize manufacturing. Think of a world where you had a
capability to manufacture with atomic precision, building
things atom by atom, molecule by molecule. This would have
enormous impact on virtually every industry and homeland
security, et cetera. And in order to time compress our
timelines, we need a partner like NIST. We don't need a
handout; we need a partner to help us compress that timeline to
make sure that we win the global competition in having this
capability and creating high value manufacturing jobs.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Mr. Hatano.
Mr. Hatano. I mentioned that we have this Semiconductor
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. That lists
over 100 measurements that are critical to our industry. What
we do is look at what is the requirement. How much accuracy do
we need in each of those measurements two years out, three
years out, five years out, all of the way out to 2018. To give
you an example of the situation we are in, if we look five
years out, if we look out to 2008, of those 100-plus
measurements, over half of them are colored red on our chart.
Red means that there is no manufacturable solution that we
currently have for that requirement. These are measurements to
certain precisions that we are expected to do five years from
now in the manufacturing environment and we don't have the
solution today--that is why we need NIST. There are quite a few
examples as you go through that list, and I have mentioned a
few of them in my testimony.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Mr. Jasinski.
Mr. Jasinski. The biometric area is a whole area that is
just emerging, and if NIST doesn't provide the leadership, I am
afraid that the United States might not be in the position to
be in the forefront to developing that emerging market.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Thank you very much. Now I am pleased to recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up on your line of questioning, if I might.
It has been very helpful to me to hear about the opportunities,
frankly, that we have in front of us that if we don't have a
fully operating and well-funded NIST, we are going to miss. Dr.
Cellucci, pardon me, I pick up on your commentary on page nine
where you talk about ``we are in an economic battle,'' an
economic war, if you will, and there is a lot of indications
that this is the most important front in the War on Terrorism,
because unless we maintain our economic competitiveness and our
leading role in the world, we are not going to have the
resources nor the standing to pursue these people who threaten
us and the ideology, as well as the hope, the despair, the
illiteracy, the oppression that feeds terrorists, because we
have to raise standards of living all over the world. So I
think you are really onto something, and I hope you will
continue to deliver that message wherever you go. In fact, we
ought to take this panel on the road and--because you all have
some very compelling examples of why this is so important
across the technological landscape.
If I could pick up on what the Chairman was talking about
and go across the panel, if we did increase NIST's budget, what
should that increase be? If all of you would like to comment,
that would be very appropriate. Starting with Mr. Hatano, do
you have any number--do you have a number in your head or an
idea of what we are talking about here?
Mr. Hatano. We don't have a number for the total NIST
budget. There are a lot of parts within NIST that we don't have
the expertise on. We are supporting the Administration's
proposal with regard to the lab's budget for the semiconductor-
related technologies, the AML, the Advanced Measurement Labs,
and the equipment facilities that go with that, as well as the
manufacturing research piece. And we see that as a first step
toward an increase more in line with a doubling their
semiconductor effort. A few years back, in the mid-1990's,
the--NIST formed an Office of Microelectronics, and when that
was formed, they envisioned that it would be twice the size of
what it is today. They formed it, and it never really
increased, and so we would like to get it to the level that was
originally envisioned when it was created.
Mr. Udall. You would propose a doubling of the budget in
that particular area, the semiconductor----
Mr. Hatano. Right.
Mr. Udall.--microconductor area?
Ms. Grubbe.
Ms. Grubbe. Mr. Congressman, I can't speak to an exact
number, however, I think what we should do is identify all of
the areas of program where there could be a hard value brought,
and then from there, do the work around what needs to be
supported, so let us start with what the work is rather than
shoot for the number.
Mr. Udall. Number.
Dr. Cellucci. I would like to amplify what my colleague had
just mentioned that. I tend to be a bottoms up kind of person.
Let the people that are working on proposals have that reviewed
by people, but I will tell you that from my perspective, it is
well under budget if we are very serious about creating
manufacturing jobs and keeping our competitiveness. In fact, I
had a rare honor to give Karl Rove, the President, to brief him
recently, talking about using nanotechnology to create energy
independence. And one of the view graphs in there shows the
number of Ph.D.s and hard science being generated in Asia
versus the United States. And Asia kind of goes like this, the
United States like this, and the sad part about the United
States' slope is that many of the people in the United States
who get their degrees go back to their originating countries.
And so I ask them to think of a scenario where China is not
only a low-cost producer but has the technological marbles. And
that is a scary scenario for me, being a laser physicist who
was stupid enough to get an MBA that we want the technological
marbles, because that is a driver for our economy. So I think
that more people than just the NIST people, in fact, should be
involved in what the NIST budget is, because it is so
pervasive, just as nanotechnology may be pervasive across the
number of industries, so is NIST. It is one of these things.
People don't recognize it, because it is not squeaking, it is
not broken, but it is vital, in my view, in terms of
technological competitiveness in the world.
Mr. Udall. Mr. Jasinski.
Mr. Jasinski. I don't think there is any way I can give you
an exact figure on that. I can say that based upon my
experience of working with NIST that their facilities are out-
moded. If you go to their testing facilities for the biometric
area, it is an old chemical lab as opposed to a computer lab.
The equipment that they use for doing the testing is many times
overwhelmed by the tasking, so the CPUs are working at 100
percent utilization, and the staffing is always that they are
multitasked at the same time, so that you would define the goal
of what you want to achieve. If you want to achieve the
leadership, you have to at least double the staff and funding
that is currently available for NIST.
Mr. Udall. Mr. Biechman.
Mr. Biechman. Mr. Udall, thank you.
I would agree with Ms. Grubbe in that we need to do a good
study of what it is that needs to be done by the NIST labs and
base a budget on that. You indicated in your opening remarks
that there were authorizations in excess of $100 million. I
guess that that is probably the tip of an iceberg. There is
much work to be done. I know they are doing work for CPSC,
Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and so forth and so on
that are not appropriated funds. Those agencies may be
transferring funds, but my guess is, not to cover all of the
work they have to do. I would be happy to participate in
helping make a listing of the things that do need to be done.
Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. Next we
turn to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
Advantage of the Science and Technology Industry Gaining
Funding From NIST Versus From Other Federal Agencies
Dr. Burgess. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I want to thank you for
convening this panel today. Acknowledging the Ranking Member's
comments about taking the show on the road, in fact, we had a
field hearing in the Science Committee down in my District in
December, right after the President signed the nanotechnology
bill, and Dr. Cellucci, I believe someone from your company,
Zyvex Corporation, was there and testified at that hearing, so
indeed we have taken the show on the road.
My question for Dr. Cellucci is, and I appreciate your
comments on the value added that NIST brings when you are able
to site NIST as the source for verifying your data, but would
it work as well if those funds came from some other federal
agency? We have increased the NIST budget--or the President has
increased the asked for the NIST budget in this year, but would
those dollars be as wisely spent if they just came from some
other federal agency that has jurisdiction over nanotechnology
or nanometrology?
Dr. Cellucci. That is an excellent question. It is very--
the--my answer will be what I normally give one of our sales
and marketing people who continuously talks about the product.
And what I will say to them is the product is much more than
the entity that we put in a box and ship. We are part of the
product. And in the same way, what I value so much with NIST is
not the money. Quite frankly, we are a growing company. We are
very excited. We are a leader in this space, but it is dealing
with the personnel. It is not a cakewalk to work with NIST. We
have put money in. They have put money in. These folks have a
lot of experience. The best way I describe it is a relationship
of tough love. They are like a mom. We have had six consecutive
quarters of commercial success with our NIST-ATP. I am very
proud of that, but what you don't see is every other week
someone from NIST calling me, ``How are we doing with the
commercialization?'' It is that constant prodding, that tough
love, that expertise, sharing of the scars, so to speak, of
trying things in technology that are just as vital to me, and
in fact, in many ways, more important to a company like Zyvex
than the money.
Dr. Burgess. So the value added that NIST brings to your
company is not just having their logo stamped on the box, it is
also the expertise and the relationship you have built over the
years?
Dr. Cellucci. Absolutely.
Dr. Burgess. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. And we now have a new name for
NIST: ``Mama NIST.'' Just like Mom's Diner.
We have time for another round of questions, so we will
continue.
Ms. Grubbe, in your testimony, you say there has been a
disconnect between the Department of Homeland Security and
NIST. And although NIST had the prior proven track record in
technical matters, DHS was given the funding to do technical
work and much time was wasted getting DHS up to speed. Could
you expand further on this topic and, perhaps, give more
specifics?
Ms. Grubbe. My understanding is that there are some
technologies that are currently in use or proposed use by the
Department of Homeland Security with regards to airplane travel
detection, threat detection that is being worked on, but could
be--the work can be accelerated and can be increased and
brought, you know, along in a faster timeline if there was more
money put to it. I mean, you are--when you are limited, you are
limited.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I agree
with you. I had an idea for improving detection of dangerous
materials in suitcases and passed it on to TSA. They all agreed
it was a good idea. Nothing happened. Now I have passed it on
to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and we will see
what happens there. It is a very simple idea, not hard to
implement, just nothing happens.
Integration of NIST Study Results into Fire and Building Codes
Mr. Biechman, I wonder if you could just give the Committee
some examples, just for the record, for--of how building and
fire codes have or may have changed as a result of the World
Trade Center and the Rhode Island fire investigations, how is
this process working? Do the results from NIST actually end up
going into the fire codes and the building codes?
Mr. Biechman. Yes. The studies that they have done on
equipment of sprinklers and that kind of equipment certainly
end up in our codes and standards. I think the issues of
studying the Rhode Island fire and, you know, the World Trade
Center collapse are, in many respects, behavior studies,
those--in terms of what individuals did when the fire broke
out. And we need to learn more about that kind of thing. The
'93 explosions--bombing of the World Trade Center, NFPA and
others went back in and helped developed better evacuation
efforts, both from the building perspective as well as the
human behavior perspective. Because of those improvements, I
think a lot of individuals were able to get out of the World
Trade Center on September 11. That kind of information that we
have learned from fires, such as the Station fire, or the
collapse of the Towers, will help us in developing codes and
standards that affect people in the future.
Chairman Ehlers. And do the codes and standards folks
pretty well pick up on what NIST says follow through?
Mr. Biechman. Yes. And they participate in our process as
well. As you know, the Technology Transfer Act urges federal
agency employees to participate in the process, so they not
only bring, you know, a document that indicates their findings,
but they actually are able to participate in the consensus
process. So there is a give and take, and an understanding that
I think adds more than just text or just an academic
assessment, talking out the issue. The process, I think, is
very, very beneficial to future safety.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
My time is almost expired. Mr. Udall, you have one
question?
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I might, I would focus on Ms. Grubbe's comments for a
minute. You talked about the MEP and how it helped DuPont and
helped your Corian finishers. Can you give some idea of what
would have happened without that MEP assistance?
Ms. Grubbe. When one looks at our Corian finishers, at some
level, because they are so dispersed, it is very difficult for
them to--for us to communicate to them, because they are not
only selling Corian, they are selling other kinds of materials.
And the skills that are required for Corian are sometimes
different than the skills required for--to install other kinds
of materials. And so without a unifying body that is local to
them, like MEP that is located wherever we sell it, which is
countrywide, without that, we are not able to touch the local
manufacturer as much as possible in the supply chain. So the
more times that we can touch them, we not only improve the
skill sets for them to install Corian, we are also improving
their overall employee skill sets for them to make their
business better. The question would be without that, our
business would be diminished. It would not be able to grow as
far as the consumer demand would require it, I believe, number
one. And number two, the skill sets of the people that are in
those businesses would be greatly reduced, and they would not
be as competitive, which puts local jobs at risk.
Mr. Udall. So arguably, this is an example of everybody
operating with an enlightened self-interest motive, if you
will?
Ms. Grubbe. It works every time.
Mr. Udall. It works every time. Yeah, it does.
The Nature and Significance of the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) of the NIST
I want to still keep you in the spotlight here and ask you,
as a member of the Review Committee, the NIST Review Committee,
what is your impression of the level of support for NIST by the
Technology Administration and the Commerce Department?
Ms. Grubbe. Excellent question. I believe that we have
support. I believe we could use more support, in, you know,
short answer. We have had interactions. We have had good
discussion. I think there could be a lot more interactions and
a lot more discussion.
Mr. Udall. Understood, and hopefully registered, by all
involved.
Thank you for your service, by the way, on that board.
Ms. Grubbe. My honor and pleasure, thank you.
Mr. Udall. I think I have got a little bit of time left,
and I thought I would come across the panel again and throw
this question out at you. We have been discussing this
implicitly, but you hear people talk about ATP as a form of
corporate welfare. How do we answer that claim?
Maybe we will start over here with my city council friend
here, by the way, congratulations. Congressman Ehlers and I
have not had the strength to remove ourselves from elective
politics and you have and are clearly on and doing great things
in your new profession, so thank you for your service more
seriously as a councilman in California. Why don't we start
there? Talk about the ATP and how we answer that claim that it
is corporate welfare.
Mr. Biechman. Certainly, I don't believe that the building
and fire research laboratories are near corporate welfare. The
product, if you will, the technology that is developed or
researched there is very specific to the safety of the
firefighting community, building safety, modeling to teach
firefighters and building engineers how to do things better so
that occupants and firefighters come out alive. I just don't
see, frankly, any connection where it would be considered
corporate welfare. I call this the public research and
technology for the public good. That is exactly what it is. For
their investment on behalf of all of us, it saves lives.
Mr. Udall. That is a good way to respond to it. Mr.
Jasinski, do you have a response?
Mr. Jasinski. I am sorry, but we don't participate in that
program.
Mr. Udall. All right.
Dr. Cellucci. I think it is an excellent question. In fact,
the Committee may be interested that I have given, I think, six
or seven briefings to Senators Bill Frist, Kay Bailey-
Hutchinson, Jim Talent, Senator George Allen on this subject,
and it is one of those issues where perception becomes reality.
When you ask someone, ``Where did you hear this from?'' no one
can provide facts. And I tend to be like Joe Friday from
Dragnet to say, ``Let us concentrate. Just the facts.'' If you
look at the facts related to the NIST-ATP program, I can tell
you that we are a living, real-world example of a small
business working with a large business with government and the
university, commercializing nanotechnology that allows new
types of technology to go on the marketplace, not in some R&D
lab hidden off somewhere, but we are actually commercializing
technology. NIST doesn't give us a handout. NIST is our
business partner. And again, we rely just as much on the
constructive criticism of the NIST personnel as much as their
money. And again, I think you are dealing with perception
becomes reality, but when you examine all of the facts, like I
had the opportunity to do, which I would be more than happy to
provide to this committee, you will see that there are
numerable examples of small businesses succeeding and putting
out new products in the marketplace because of the NIST-ATP
program. It is a very unique, worthwhile program that, in my
view, should be an example to many government agencies on how
to get the collaboration of, again, government, small and big
businesses, and universities.
Mr. Udall. Ms. Grubbe.
Ms. Grubbe. Yes, I would like to give a specific example of
a large company work with ATP. This goes back into the '90s,
but at that time where we made a proposal for an ATP program
around high-temperature, superconducting materials, DuPont had
already been involved in a research program that was three
years old. And we were debating whether or not to disband that
research effort, because it had a lot of high technical
uncertainty. So we went ahead and we applied and were given an
ATP grant to the tune of $1.5 million. We contributed another
$800 thousand to that effort, kept the research going, and was
able to achieve some breakthroughs around technology
development and it would not have happened without the ATP
award. So I don't see it necessarily as welfare. I see it,
again, as was mentioned by my colleagues earlier, a form of
partnership where it gives assistance and helps one deal with
some efforts of uncertainty.
Mr. Udall. Maybe there is some utility in using some of the
language in the debate here when we reformed the welfare
system. We talked about work fair. We talked about other
benefits of that kind of system. Perhaps there are lessons
there that we could use in the 30 seconds we often have to
explain why ATP is important.
Mr. Hatano, do you want the last word?
Mr. Hatano. We have spent a lot of time discussing the ATP.
A number--and we actually are neutral with regard to ATP. A
number of our members believe that ATP is doing solid research
that otherwise would not be undertaken because of the risky
nature of those particular projects. We have other members who
are concerned about the perception that you raised and are
concerned that that would distract away from our efforts to
increase research at national labs and universities. And given
those different views we have within our association, we have
decided to be neutral. I would say, though, that you have hit
on the broader point of trying to address skeptics to the whole
effort we are doing to increase research, not just ATP but
NIST, and not just NIST in general, but rather NSF and the
broader picture here. Some of the answers that we give them is
to point out--put aside the benefits to the overall economy,
and just look at the Federal Government as somebody who is
making an investment, just as a company, or anyone else, would
make an investment.
Looking at the Federal Government as a purchaser of
semiconductors and computing power, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis at the Department of Commerce projects that spending
on computing power was about $9 billion for governments as a
whole (Federal, State, and local) in 2003. And if the
governments have to buy that same level of computing power at
1994 prices, they would have spent $106 billion. So
cumulatively, over the last decade, we have--using the Bureau
of Economic Analysis' numbers, about $363 billion of free
computing power, that is computing power that they are able to
purchase because of the fact that we have continued to lower
prices.
So you know, the first point we make is the government
needs to spend the money to do the research to allow us to
continue on Moore's Law, to allow us to continue to lower costs
and benefit not just the whole economy, but also the government
in its role as a purchaser as well.
We also note that the government gets a big return in terms
of tax revenues from the economic growth in productivity that
we are generating. The Congressional Budget Office, as you
know, says that we have about a $2 trillion budget deficit over
the next 10-year window. And that is assuming that the 0.7
percentage point growth--surge in productivity doesn't
continue. So they are assuming that the recent gains we had in
productivity doesn't continue into the future. But they do note
that computers and other information technologies are
transforming our economy and have caused this surge in
productivity, arguably, and that is still an open question
among economists. But that if, in fact, this is going to be
more permanent because of what semiconductors are doing, you
have got a huge increase in productivity. I mean, it doesn't
sound huge, ``0.7 percent,'' but they note that every tenth of
a percentage point in GDP growth represents $236 billion in
lowering the federal deficit due to increased tax revenue.
So you have from those investments that you are making in
science, you are able to get the productivity increases that
the government gets a huge return on in terms of tax revenues
and impact on the federal deficit. I think the answer to people
who say that the added cost in this time of deficit is a
difficult thing for us to deal with, I think the answer is that
we can't afford not to make these sort of investments.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Thanks again to the panel.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. We will
do a brief third round, and call it quits.
First, Mr. Jasinski, it appears that all of the funding for
biometrics research development goes to the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice even though
NIST is deeply involved in the technical work. Should NIST, in
your view, have its own in-house program and funding, and if
so, why and how much?
Mr. Jasinski. Yes, I strongly would recommend that they
have their own independent budget. I think that everyone always
responds to their funding source and that if you have your own
funding source, you are more independent than if you are
dependent upon a transfer of funds from another agency the
extent of that funding, I think, depends upon the goal that you
would want to achieve in trying to establish that. The doubling
of their facilities is really just critical in every sense of
the word, both in manpower and equipment.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Will the Establishment of Institutions Similar to NIST in Other
Countries Contribute to the Relocation of Industry Activities,
Particularly Research and Development, to These Countries?
And Ms. Grubbe, you mentioned about other countries are
trying to establish institutions of their own that would
replicate NIST. Would these--the existence of these
institutions be an incentive for companies to relocate their
businesses, particularly their R&D in those countries, and if
so, why? And also how would the existence of these institutions
stimulate the growth of industry in those foreign countries
that are already getting our jobs? Any comment?
Ms. Grubbe. I am aware of some work going on right now in
the European Union with regards to technology standards
development. And my impression, and this is primarily through
touchstones in the aerospace industry, that it is affecting
decisions around what gets imported, where it gets made,
because if you are part of the club, so to speak, it is easier
for you to accomplish things than if you are sitting on the
outside trying to move in. I am also aware that there is some
standards development going on in China. I am not an expert in
this area of, you know, WiFi, for example, but I know that
China is working on some standards in this area and have seen
other issues there. So the question becomes where do we want to
place ourselves as a nation. Do we want to be the lead dog on
the sled or do we want to be somewhere else in line? And my
perspective is that our nation's interest is served better and
our future is served better and our people are served better if
we are the lead dog on the sled if we can afford it, in all
cases. And at this point, we are in a spot where we are going
where we can't afford that. We are showing that we don't want
to invest there, and that is a mistake, I believe.
Chairman Ehlers. All right. Thank you very much. That will
conclude our questioning for today. And I certainly want to
thank the panelists for attending. I neglected to introduce Dr.
Smirgem, who is also in the audience. I have introduced Dr.
Bement earlier, but Dr. Smirgem is helping out in taking over
one or the other and at NIST as well, and we appreciate your
attendance as well.
So it is my pleasure to thank you for everything you have
contributed. It has been very, very good and very, very helpful
to us as we try to improve the funding for NIST. If there is no
objection, the record will remain open for additional
statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up
questions the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists. Without
objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned, but I would like to ask the
witnesses to join me briefly in the Chairman's lounge: there is
something I would like to discuss with you. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
FY 2004 Budget Cut Impacts Summary
The following contains a summary of how the FY 2004 budget cuts
will impact NIST. Efforts are being made to minimize staff reductions
and elimination of programs necessary to fulfill the NIST mission. The
summary was compiled from reports submitted by the individual NIST OUs
in January, 2004. The impacts comprise the following:
missed cost savings to industry and reduced
industrial competitiveness
staff reductions
missed improvements in homeland security and public
safety
missed benefits to public health
missed developments and improvements in basic
science.
The specific impacts are listed below.
NIST Laboratories--Gaithersburg
Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
None planned.
Missed cost savings for industry
Reduction in materials science and engineering
research will result in:
delayed benefits of reduced cement and concrete
testing time and consequent reduced construction time.
The work also has $0.4M of support by an industrial
consortium.
delayed benefits of greater inter-operability of
building equipment by slowing development of inter-
operability standards.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Across the board rescission will have homeland
security, public safety, and critical infrastructure protection
impacts:
delayed evaluation of explosive and flammable vapor
detectors, a critical first step in development of
standardized test procedures
delayed development of a standard on electronic pre-
incident plans for first responders
delayed benefits of improved security for building
automation and control systems due to reduced efforts
in software development.
reduction of an already-decimated national fire
grants program, the only federal program supporting
fundamental fire research programs at U.S. universities
Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
Maximum number of anticipated staff reductions: 9
CSTL plans to implement the remaining budget reductions through
decreased other object) spending and reduced laboratory overhead costs.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed release of the next national reference
standard AGA-8 due to research to extend the reference
thermodynamic equations-of-state for natural gas being delayed
by more than one year. This effort is part of NIST interactions
with the American Gas Association in support of its national
and international standards for the custody transfer of natural
gas. This work directly, which is part of NIST's efforts to
support the American Gas Association (AGA) in its develop
affects the sales and pricing of natural gas in the market
place. In an era of dramatically rising energy prices, the
world needs accurate data on which to base commerce.
Critical data on refrigerant mixtures proposed as
possible replacements for existing formulations delayed by one
year or more. NIST works with the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) to
develop predictive models, based on reference standard
thermodynamic equations-of-state. Failure by U.S. industry to
produce improved replacements for currently used refrigerant
blends will weaken the market position for refrigeration and
air conditioning equipment (especially in Asia where the
Japanese are our biggest competitors) and make it difficult to
compete in sales of the refrigerant mixtures in the world
market.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Reduction to, at best, a one-half staff year effort
for the development of computational models and supporting
engineering data used for engineering design of advanced
cryocoolers (light weight, extremely long lived cryogenic
refrigeration devices) required for satellite-and space-borne
observation and communication systems, severely reducing NIST
output and innovation.
Missed Improvements in Public Health
Reduction of efforts in classical analytical
chemistry from eight to three staff-years. Classical methods
for chemical analysis are important because more and more of
the instruments that are being manufactured are automated
``black boxes'' with increased uncertainty in the instruments'
analytical capabilities. Primary methods like gravimetry,
titrimetry, and coulometry are important to maintain a stable
comparison basis for our national chemical measurement system
across instrument platforms. These budget cuts are expected to
adversely affect a broad spectrum of industry and quality of
life issues from pollution controls to health care diagnostics.
To meet U.S. industry needs we are required to keep pace and
even ahead of the industry that we serve in terms of
measurement technologies. In the current budget climate, this
has come at the expense of ``core competencies'' like classical
analytical chemistry.
The loss of senior staff at NIST's Center for
Advanced Research in Biotechnology is causing severe reduction
in programs in membrane proteomics, computational biology and
bioinformatics. These are areas that have been targeted for
significant growth in response to stakeholder interest (FDA,
NCI/NIH, and several for profit companies). In addition, the
ability of NIST to leverage expertise at the University of
Maryland in equivalent areas has all but disappeared. This
reduction in our measurements and standards research will make
initiatives by NIST to help improve the efficiency and
reliability of U.S. industry in the areas of health care,
industrial biotechnology, agbiotechnology and biomanufacturing
much more difficult.
NIST lost one of its most productive senior-level
scientists. If we are unable to replace this individual because
of the reduced funding in the FY04 budget, there will be a
severe impact on our ability to fulfill our obligations to the
microelectronics industry and other stakeholders. For example,
this individual was a critical member of the research team
working on the development of SiGe thin film standards for the
semiconductor industry (see New York Times article July 30th,
2003.) His absence has delayed the release of these materials
and without a suitable replacement will result in the need to
develop different measurement technologies which will delay the
program by at least 12 months.
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Laboratory (EEEL)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
NOTE: EEEL will not need a RIF to maintain solvency, largely
due to breathing room from the 30-person RIF taken in FY 2003.
This is based also on the assumption that the target for cuts
is $ 2.4M (excluding carryover rescission), a redirection of
$300k of external nanotechnology funding to internal efforts,
receipt of $296.8k of new nanotechnology funds from the Physics
sub-activity line item, and allocation of $400k of new FY04
Competence funding. EEEL was also given $270k to cover the
carryover rescission based on the $811k of AML equipment money
that didn't get through procurement in FY03. EEEL served as the
buyer for all of NIST's AML equipment and therefore was not
held to be responsible for all of the AML part of its
carryover.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed benefits to industry of basic standards work,
including improvements in the SI unit for impedance, by
eliminating contractors for making the AML laboratories
functional and placing the burden on NIST staff.
Eliminated benefits of plasma processing metrology to
the semiconductor industry by no longer providing the
techniques, data, and models needed to optimize and thereby
reduce the costs of semiconductor processing techniques.
Delayed introduction of advanced manufacturing
techniques and additional costs to small and medium size
electronics manufacturers due to reductions in planned
functionality of the Web Portal for the Inter-operability
Testbed.
Delayed introduction of new electronics chip and
other products by reduction or elimination of development of
semiconductor test methodology to assure quality control.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Delayed remediation of vulnerabilities of control
systems used by the electric power, water, gas, and other
industries by reducing support for development of secure
supervisory control system and data acquisition systems
(SCADAs).
Information Technology Laboratory (ITL)
The cuts will impact support of the Federal
Government computer security, have impacts on homeland
security. They will increase costs to IT and communications
equipment manufacturers, communication networks, Internet
service providers, health care providers.
Anticipated staff reductions via voluntary separation, details,
reductions in force, redirection to reimbursable projects
15 (no RIFS are planned; hoping to reduce rolls by 15
through VERA, buyouts, details, and redirection to reimbursable
projects).
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Hindered federal agencies' ability to remediate
security vulnerabilities by leaving them without hands-on
expert guidance by elimination of NIST's Computer Security
Expert Assistance Team (CSEAT) program.
Delayed remediation of a critical set of core
Internet vulnerabilities by reducing efforts to develop new
Internet security protocols; next generation first responder
systems using ultra-wideband (UWB) techniques by reducing
support for protocol development; and vulnerabilities of
wireless networks used by small business and home users by
reduction of efforts in development of minimum security
requirements.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Increased time delay and costs to commercial
laboratories and vendors of product certifications needed for
federal procurements by delaying the Federal Information System
(FISMA)-mandated development of checklists and guidelines for
procurement of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) security
technologies.
Delayed transition to the new Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6) by cutting efforts to, understand its
implementation and use while the core infrastructure continues
to operate using the previous version 4, and to provide advice
to the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration, Department of Defense, and Department of
Homeland Security on the transition from IPv4.
Increased national annual cost (to IT developers) due
to inadequate infrastructure for software testing estimated to
range between $22.2M to $59.5 billion and reduction of quality
to the IT industry including Microsoft, IBM, Xerox, Accenture,
Intel, and other federal agencies (Defense Advanced Projects
Research Agency, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence
Agency) by eliminating support for development of automatic
test generation (ATG) standards and reduction of development of
XML conformance tests.
Increased costs of health care by delaying the
development of a framework for exchange of critical health care
information in conjunction with the American Telemedicine
Association (ATA).
Delayed introduction of IT systems expected to be in
the marketplace in under three years and delay in other NIST
physical science projects due to reduction in support for:
understanding wired and wireless complex networked systems;
analyzing and using enormous data and information stored in
global cyber systems; building trust and confidence in
integrated dynamic systems; and development of unique
mathematical and theoretical statistical models to support NIST
physical science projects.
Elimination of New Voting Standards Development
Termination of activities under the Help America Vote
Act--intended to assure voters' confidence in election systems
and singled out as critical at a recent conference on voting
standards and technologies needs.
Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL)
The cuts will increase costs and development times for
manufacturers including semiconductor, automotive, and aerospace
industries, and cause delays in the remediation of vulnerabilities in
critical infrastructure industries such as electric power, water, gas,
chemical, manufacturing, and many others.
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
None planned.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed development and reduction in quality of next-
generation microelectronics standards having sub-50 nanometer
features by delay in development in scanning electron
microscope (SEM) measurements and modeling.
Delayed development of needed length and force
standards for the developing nanotechnology industry.
Delayed development of emerging technologies due to
reduction of support in exploratory projects that develop NIST
competence and agility in support of the emerging needs of
industry.
Delayed development of improved supply chain inter-
operability and added costs to manufacturers by delaying
integration supply chain integration and measurement standards
development resulting from a $500k cut in the Systems
Integration for Manufacturing Applications program.
Increased costs and difficulties to U.S.
manufacturers globally by reducing U.S. representation in
international standardization and conformance testing efforts
in the areas of electronic commerce B2B, manufacturing and
metrology inter-operability, including product data, process
data and simulation technology.
Increased costs and difficulties to U.S.
manufacturers globally by reducing U.S. representation in
international standardization and conformance testing efforts
in the areas of electronic commerce B2B, manufacturing and
metrology inter-operability, including product data, process
data and simulation technology.
Additional costs to manufacturers conducting business
in global markets by reducing MEL participation in
international standards to ensure the fair representation of
U.S. interests in the technical areas of mass metrology, force
metrology, acoustics metrology (including hearing aid
standards), mechanical vibration and shock, machine tool
performance evaluation methods, and sensor networking and
integration.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Delayed benefits of greatly increased security for
control systems used by the electric power, water, oil and gas,
chemical, manufacturing, and many other process control
industries by delaying the development of IT security
requirements for industrial control systems under the Critical
Infrastructure Protection program.
Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
Maximum number of anticipated staff reductions: 10-15
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed development of technologies in fuel cells,
thermal barrier coatings for jet engines, biomaterials for
tissue engineering and implants and nanotubes for electronics
by eliminating NIST contribution to beamline operating expenses
and contract staff support for the UNICAT team (comprising the
University of Illinois, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and UOP
Corporation) at Argonne National Laboratory, which may result
in breakup of UNICAT, which has a unique x-ray facility at
Argonne.
Loss of economic advantage to U.S. manufacturers via
further reduction in the time-to-market for new materials by
eliminating support to the NIST Combinatorial Methods Center
that would extend mass spectrometer and scan probe microscopy
capabilities.
Delayed development of next-generation
microelectronic devices by reducing support for the
collaboration with International Sematech on Low-k Nanoporous
Thin Film Dielectrics.
Delayed development of new nanocomposite materials by
cutting work with a small instrument manufacturer for online
nanocomposite measurements.
Delayed development of solid oxide fuel cells by
delaying NIST introduction of new x-ray methods.
Increased time-to-market time for high-efficiency
solid-state lighting, which is projected to result in a $50B
annual energy savings, by eliminating support for the EEEL
efforts in wide bandgap optoelectronic materials.
Reduced service to customers as a result of reduced
support for operations in the NIST Center for Neutron Research:
Delayed development of critical new instrumentation
and possible default on inter-agency partnerships.
Operation of two existing instruments in 2004.
Indefinite postponement of the completion of
beamlines needed for continuation of high priority
Physics and Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory
programs, including a competence project for imaging of
fuel cells.
Missed Improvements in Public Health
Delayed introduction of lead-free solders by delaying
the delivery by NIST of measurements to qualify lead-free
solders for high-reliability commercial and military
electronics.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Delayed developments needed by the Department of
Defense, including armor applications, advanced tungsten
projectiles to replace depleted uranium, and amorphous metals
for structural applications by eliminating NIST funding of the
Powder Processing for Defense Applications project, which is
now co-funded by the Army.
Physics Laboratory
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
Reduction in Force of two staff and positions
eliminated for 11 contractors and guest scientists. Reductions
are temporarily relieved by expectation of increased other
agency funding, primarily from DHS.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed or hindered developments in a broad range of
areas including high performance computing, radiation therapy
and diagnostics, and nanoscale and optical science and
engineering, by reducing contracts and collaborations with
technical experts, industrial consortia, and standards-writing
organizations and committees.
Reduced responsivity of the Office of Electronic
Commerce for Scientific and Engineering Data (ECSED) to the
growing needs of industry and the technical community for
critically evaluated reference data delivered to the desktop
and the work bench. About 500,000 webpages are downloaded
monthly by industry, academia, and other federal agencies from
the ECSED website.
Delayed developments by and reduced quality for the
semiconductor industry by reduction in NIST support for plasma
diagnostics.
Delayed development of many new commercial devices,
such as the very high information density wavelength division
multiplexing (WDM) devices that will increase capacity of
existing fiber communication networks, by delaying the
development of frequency combs for higher accuracy time and
frequency standards.
Delayed development of and decreased quality of new
semiconductor devices by reducing the x-ray metrology project,
which supports the semiconductor industry.
Reductions in developments in basic neutron science
due to reduction in support of the Cold Neutron Research
Facility research stations.
Missed Basic Science Developments and Improvements
Delayed advances in basic science and ability to
discover new phenomena by reduction of grants to universities
for measurement research under the Precision Measurement Grant
program.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Delayed developments of new optical technologies,
such as for Homeland Security, microscopy, remote sensing, and
industrial applications by reducing support for development of
national standards of optical radiation and associated
measurement services.
Technology Services (TS)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
Reduction in Force (RIF) of 10 and elimination of
three other positions.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Increased fees to private sector users of the
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), by
recovering costs for international NVLAP activities now covered
by NIST.
Delayed remediation of unnecessary duplication in
conformance assessment programs among federal agencies as
provided for by the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 by reassigning NIST staff to perform
work previously planned to be done by contractors.
Reduced fair representation of U.S. manufacturers'
interests resulting in the increased likelihood of de facto
trade barriers being raised by elimination of $515k in grants
to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to
strengthen U.S. representation on international standards
development committees.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
None planned
Missed Basic Science Developments and Improvements; Missed Cost
Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness; Missed
Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Hindered work of NIST Boulder scientists by deferring
procurement of a replacement scientific computing server.
Hindered NIST work by reducing the number of
scientific computing packages procured and maintained by OCIO.
NIST Laboratories--Boulder
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Laboratory (EEEL)
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Delayed deployment of new commercial very high
density wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) devices that
will increase capacity of existing fiber communication networks
as the industry emerges from its slump by delaying the
development of high accuracy frequency combs for advanced
wavelength metrology.
Delayed in advancements and developments of emerging
technologies including wireless, magnetic storage, high-speed
digital, IT and electro-optics devices due to delay in delivery
of new metrology tools by the electro-optics, nonlinear and
nano-magnetics programs.
Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public Safety, and
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Delayed introduction of commercial chemical and
biological sensors, including those to be used for Homeland
Security threat detection, by delaying new blue and ultraviolet
laser wavelength and detector standards.
Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL)
Missed Improvements in Public Health
Delayed medical research developments for the
Colorado Health Sciences Center, the National Jewish Medical
Research Center, and the Children's Hospital of Denver by
cutting the NIST biomaterials reliability program in half,
greatly reducing NIST ability to provide measurements of single
cell properties.
NIST Extramural Programs
Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
None planned.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Reductions in educational materials and outreach
about the Baldrige award criteria and program that helps guide
companies, schools and health care institutions to improve
management excellence--at a time when quality and budget crises
and manufacturing challenges require greater efficiency and
strategic thinking.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership(MEP)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
Maximum number of anticipated staff reductions: 24
from a total staff of 49.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial Competitiveness
Reduced support for small manufacturers because of a
significant reduction in the total number of Centers as a
result of recompetition of all existing MEP Centers within a
budget of $20.0M.
Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
Anticipated Staff Reductions Via Voluntary Separation, Details,
Reductions in Force, Redirection to Reimbursable Projects
None planned.
Missed Cost Savings by Industry, Reduced Industrial
Competitiveness; Missed Improvements in Homeland Security, Public
Safety
Reduction in developments in measurements, standards,
homeland security, and public safety through reduction in ATP
intramural funding of projects in the NIST laboratories.
Statement by The American Chemical Society
Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations
By The American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society urged the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State, and Judiciary to increase investment in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. ACS supports the President's FY
2005 request to provide $417 million for the NIST Laboratories. This 25
percent increase is needed to address problematic cuts last year and
shortfalls in previous years. ACS does not support the proposed
termination of the Advanced Technology Program and urges Congress and
the Administration to work toward a bipartisan solution to fund ATP at
the FY 2004 level of $170.5 million.
ACS supports increased investments in NIST to advance the research,
measurement methods, and standards that are vital to American industry
and to the Nation's economic competitiveness and security. Increased
funding is necessary to meet ongoing private sector needs for NIST
measurements and standards as well as growing needs in homeland
security, advanced manufacturing, and nanotechnology.
NIST Laboratories
NIST laboratories serve as the technological nerve center for
countless products and services across industries. By advancing
research, extremely accurate measurement technology, and consensus-
based technical standards, NIST enables universal quality control
technologies that support industrial productivity and efficiency
improvements and faster product development. In addition to fostering
economic growth, NIST plays a critical role in advancing public health
and safety, environmental progress, and the Nation's security. NIST's
calibration and related measurement methods are critical to the
national adoption of incredibly precise measurements in areas such as
emission control, fuel composition, smoke detector sensitivity,
electricity meter readings, the energy efficiency of appliances, and
the velocity of light traveling through optical fibers. Without NIST's
consensus-based measurement standards and the research and facilities
that ensure their cutting-edge quality, companies simply would be less
innovative, less efficient, and less competitive in world markets.
ACS is concerned that recent cuts in standards-related programs
will hamper NIST's ability to promote international acceptance of U.S.
standards and facilitate global trade. Additional funding is also
needed to support NIST's increased role in nanotechnology, information
technology, and homeland security--including measurement technologies
for detecting and countering terrorist threats. ACS applauds NIST's
Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory for its high-quality
research and technology support for the chemical and other industries.
The work performed at NIST laboratories requires cutting-edge
laboratory conditions, and ACS supports increased investment in
facilities to address problems associated with air cleanliness,
temperature and humidity control. Many independent studies show that
every dollar invested in NIST measurement and standards programs
returns at least three dollars in national economic benefits.
Advanced Technology Program
ACS also continues to support NIST's Advanced Technology Program
(ATP), which strengthens the ability of small and large companies
across industrial sectors to pursue and accelerate high-risk research
and technologies that would not likely be funded absent government
support. Small start-up firms, for example, have relied on ATP funding
to achieve technological advances that would not otherwise be possible
given scarce venture capital funding in many long-term research areas.
The ATP program provides an incentive for firms to perform research
that has greater risks than typical industrial R&D and holds great
promise for broad economic impact. ACS opposes the Administration's
proposed termination of ATP, which will impact negatively on economic
growth. We urge Congress and the Administration to work toward a
bipartisan solution that retains the goals and sustains funding for
this program.
Statement of The American Society for Quality
The American Society for Quality (ASQ) wishes to commend the
Science Committee for holding hearings on funding for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency that plays an
important role in the American quality movement.
ASQ has worked closely with NIST since the mid-1980s. Our
organizations came together due to our mutual interest in the need at
that time to restore American competitiveness through product and
service quality. The result of that interest and need was the
establishment of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, which is
administered by NIST's Baldrige National Quality Program office. ASQ
has also maintained a close working relationship with NIST over the
years on standards-related matters, including most recently standards
related to homeland security. As the Nation's leading quality
improvement organization, ASQ has been closely involved with the
Baldrige Award since its inception. The expertise of ASQ members was
instrumental in formation and refinement of the highly acclaimed
Baldrige Award Criteria. Furthermore, ASQ represents the primary
network of quality professionals in the United States, who form the
core of the extensive volunteer activity supporting the Baldrige
process throughout the country.
The services provided by NIST in managing the Baldrige Award
program are not available elsewhere--due to the unique nature of the
Baldrige process and the roles that NIST plays in this unparalleled
public-private collaboration.
NIST provides a safe forum for firms to share information about
their quality models and processes, which normally would not be shared
because of its proprietary nature. NIST has an impeccable reputation
for high standards and objectivity, an essential condition for entities
to reveal sensitive information about their programs. NIST brings
national prestige to the quality improvement initiative.
NIST has proven to be very effective in leveraging the efforts of
the private and voluntary sector organizations that provide extensive
monetary, professional, and in-kind services and support for the
Baldrige Award activities--organizations such as ASQ and the private-
sector Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
Baldrige has provided a rigorous, nonpolitical examination process
for its applicants that has proven effective in understanding and
recognizing those organizations that have achieved superior results
because of quality management--and in sharing those results across all
sectors. The Baldrige process is perceived as fair, and without its own
agenda. In addition, the business, education, and health care
communities have expressed the need for a NIST-managed Baldrige program
that is independent of agencies with regulatory oversight.
None of these functions can be undertaken by the private sector
alone or by another government agency; they are truly unique to NIST.
The Baldrige Award program, a key element in defining quality
practices in all sectors of the economy, is affected by the reduction
in NIST's funding in two primary ways.
Because of budget considerations, two positions (out of 36) in the
Baldrige National Quality Program that have become vacant through staff
departures will not be filled.
A second major impact is that NIST will delay its efforts in
developing e-processes. These include distance and web-based learning
modules for Baldrige Examiners, electronic submission of Baldrige
applications, and secure web-based application review by Examiners.
These e-processes represent potential cost savings in the
administration of the award program and potential cycle-time reductions
for applicant feedback. The greatest desire of Baldrige applicant
customers is more rapid feedback.
ASQ supports an increase in funding for the Baldrige Award program
of $1.5 million for Fiscal Year 2005 that would fund activities related
to the expansion of the Baldrige Award to cover the not-for-profit
sector. This move will allow the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award to reach its full potential as a force for positive change within
our nation's economy by permitting not-for-profit organizations,
representing a significant portion of the U.S. economy, to apply for
the Award and benefit from its assessment and feedback processes.
In addition to ASQ, the independent Foundation for the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award, the Baldrige Board of Overseers, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the President have all endorsed the
expansion, and the Foundation has indicated its willingness to
determine additional fundraising that may be necessary to support a new
not-for-profit category.
Statement by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc.-United States of America (IEEE-USA)
The IEEE-USA is pleased to express its support for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, whose laboratory and extramural
programs play a critical role in providing essential measurement and
other enabling technologies that underpin the competitiveness of U.S.
industry. With respect to the FY 2005 NIST budget request, IEEE-USA
appreciates and strongly supports the significant increase in funding
for NIST's vital laboratory programs but are concerned that the
increase will not adequately compensate for the major decrease in
funding in the previous fiscal year. We believe that strong
reassurances of stability of funding are necessary. Furthermore, we
oppose the elimination of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the
corresponding reductions to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program.
The ATP provides critical resources for high risk, long-term
research and development and relies on cost sharing, peer review and
competition to ensure that only deserving proposals are funded. It is a
model for collaboration between the Federal Government and the private
sector in funding advanced technologies. Over the past decade, the ATP
has awarded 709 projects. Four out of five ATP projects result in new
products or processes introduced into the marketplace, and half of all
ATP projects result in a patent application. One prosthesis technology
project alone is projected to deliver $15 billion in the economy. This
is exactly the type of payoff Americans expect for their tax dollars.
The MEP has a proven track record of promoting innovation and
economic growth. The MEP has helped over 150,000 small and mid-size
businesses to grow, modernize, and improve productivity. The MEP
program is instrumental to re-vitalizing the manufacturing industry and
to creating and keeping jobs in the U.S. Given the significant benefit
it provides to American innovation, economic prosperity and job
creation, cutting the MEP at this time would be a serious mistake.
We understand the difficult decisions that Congress must make in a
very constrained budget environment. However, we believe that
eliminating the ATP and reducing the MEP budget is short-sighted and
would be detrimental to the United States' international
competitiveness. We strongly urge you to support funding the ATP at the
level of $145 million and the MEP at $106 million, as provided in the
FY 2004 budget, while sustaining the requested budget for the NIST
laboratory program.
IEEE-USA is an organizational unit of the IEEE, which was created
in 1973 to advance the public good and promote the careers and public
policy interests of the more than 225,000 technology professionals who
are U.S. members of the IEEE. Our members are employed in industry,
academia, and government.
We are submitting this statement for the information of the
Committee and ask that it be incorporated into the hearing record.