    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
                    FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
                      AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 March 16, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-66

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                  ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     20-836PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                     HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    GARY PALMER, Alabama                 ERIC SWALWELL, California
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 16, 2016

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

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........     7
        Written Statement............................................     9

    Statement by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Subcommittee on
      Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    11
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    21
        Written Statement............................................    22

                                    Witness:

    Dr. Willie E. May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
      Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
      Technology
        Oral Statement...............................................    24
        Written Statement............................................    27
    Discussion.......................................................    38

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Willie E. May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
      Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
      Technology.....................................................    50

                       AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL

                    FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS

                      AND TECHNOLOGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
               Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock
    [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
    Budget Proposal for the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology for Fiscal Year 2017.'' I now recognize myself for
    five minutes for an opening statement.
        I would first like to thank Dr. Willie May, Director of the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
    Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, for
    appearing today to discuss the NIST budget request for fiscal
    year 2017.
        This Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for
    NIST and its contributions to research and development. As a
    non-regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce that
    works closely alongside industry, NIST works to promote U.S.
    innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
    measurement science, standards, and technology.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget request for NIST totals $1
    billion, an increase of $50.5 million or about five percent
    from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. A large portion of
    this request is $730.5 million for NIST's Scientific and
    Technical Research Services. The STRS request includes
    increases for work conducted on measurement science for future
    computing technologies and applications, advanced sensing for
    manufacturing, biomanufacturing or engineered biology,
    addressing spectrum issues, neutron research, and lab-to-market
    or technology transfer promoting data-sharing efforts.
        The requested increases from NIST for fiscal year 2017
    would also be devoted in large part to bolster advanced
    manufacturing initiatives at NIST. In fact, $47 million dollars
    is requested for the National Network for Manufacturing
    Innovation. This program was authorized by the Revitalize
    American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 authored by
    Chairman Smith and approved by this Committee on a bipartisan
    basis.
        NIST is authorized to use up to $5 million per year of
    appropriated funds for fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2024,
    and the Department of Energy is authorized to transfer to NIST
    up to $250 million of appropriated funds for that same period
    of time.
        To administer NNMI, the RAMI Act also established strategic
    direction for the program and rules to assure fair competition
    for federal dollars. The fiscal year 2017 request for NNMI is
    an 88 percent increase from what was appropriated for fiscal
    year 2016, and my colleagues and I will be asking questions
    this morning about that increase and other aspects. We will
    also learn more today about the Institute's investment in
    cybersecurity and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
        As you all know, one of the great challenges of the 21st
    century is cybersecurity. This committee has held multiple
    hearings on cybersecurity since the news over the summer that
    the OPM was the target of two massive data breaches, exposing
    the sensitive information of over 21 million Americans,
    including me and many of my colleagues and many of our staff
    here on Capitol Hill, as well as tens of thousands of our
    constituents.
        More recently, we have seen the example of the security
    breach at the IRS, affecting hundreds of thousands of American
    taxpayers.
        Considering the constantly evolving cyber threats and
    technology, it is imperative that we do everything that we can
    to protect our citizens. In order to ensure this, NIST plays a
    very important role by providing guidelines and standards to
    help reduce cyber risks to federal agencies and critical
    infrastructure.
        Solutions are needed not only to prevent and detect cyber
    attacks, but also to bolster rapid response and recovery. Last
    week, I participated in several events on cybersecurity, and
    I'm very pleased that in my district this is an issue they are
    very much focused on, and certainly look forward to working
    with NIST to make sure that we are on top of all of these key
    issues.
        I look forward to and am appreciative of the opportunity to
    hear from Dr. May on how NIST plans to prioritize and manage
    funding, as well as how it sets its budget.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. I now recognize the gentlewoman from
    Connecticut, Ms. Esty, for an opening statement.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, and thank you for
    holding today's important hearing to examine the fiscal year
    2017 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, which we will refer to as NIST because it's a whole
    lot shorter.
        Dr. Willie May, thank you so much for testifying this
    morning and for your leadership at NIST.
        For more than 100 years, NIST has supported the
    competitiveness of American companies. NIST's broad and deep
    technical experience has advanced measurement science,
    standards, and technological innovation, creating a strong U.S.
    economy and improving our quality of life. And I'm pleased that
    the President's budget for NIST recognizes its importance to
    this country, enabling the agency to play a prominent role in
    revitalizing American manufacturing and expanding technology
    transfer activities.
        The Administration's budget request proposes increases for
    two important manufacturing programs: the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership, the MEP program; and, as was already
    referenced by Chairwoman Comstock, the National Network for
    Manufacturing Innovation.
        MEP centers help manufacturers increase their
    profitability, streamline their processes, and adopt cutting-
    edge manufacturing technologies. The Connecticut State
    Technology Extension Program, or CONNSTEP as we call it, has
    helped numerous Connecticut manufacturing companies. For
    example, in my district, CONNSTEP helped Hologic, Incorporated,
    a leading developer and manufacturer of medical imaging
    systems, by working on one of their main manufacturing
    facilities. This facility, located in Danbury, employs more
    than 300 people and develops digital imaging technology for 3-D
    mammography. CONNSTEP helped this company optimize their shop
    floor layout in order to accommodate a new line of 3-D
    mammography equipment and develop new training.
        After working with CONNSTEP, the manufacturing facility saw
    the following improvements: Their unit production increased by
    11 percent, lead time reduced by 50 percent; they achieved
    $280,000 in cost savings; they had an increase in sales of $80
    million and 100 percent on-time shipment rate. Those are real
    figures and real jobs and real savings for the American people.
    And they are pretty impressive results and represent only one
    example, one of many, where the MEP program has been serving
    communities and serving companies across this country.
        The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation is a
    partnership among federal agencies, the private sector, and
    colleges and universities to create a national research and
    workforce training infrastructure for advanced manufacturing.
    At a time when American manufacturers face workforce challenges
    such as the growing skills gap, NNMI gives us a reason to be
    optimistic. And I am pleased that Congress funded NIST this
    year to establish the NNMI coordinating office.
        I'm also happy to see that, last month, NIST announced an
    open-topic competition for the formation of two new institutes.
    As the only agency that isn't limited to a single mission, NIST
    can invite a broad range of proposals to help grow America's
    manufacturing future.
        Finally, I'm pleased that the Administration's budget
    request increases funding for technology transfer activities.
    Federally funded research has changed our society and our
    economy and has led to major job creation. It's difficult to
    imagine or even remember a world without the Internet, GPS,
    health- and life-saving technology that has all originated from
    federally funded research.
        In this Subcommittee we often discuss the value of
    transferring federally funded research to the commercial
    marketplace, and I was pleased to see that this budget proposes
    developing and expanding platforms for sharing information and
    knowledge. These programs represent only a small fraction of
    the important work done at NIST.
        NIST is a small federal agency with a grand purpose of
    promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. At a
    time when U.S. leadership in these areas is being challenged,
    NIST is more important than ever.
        Ms. Chairwoman, thank you again for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to working with you and our colleagues to
    ensure that NIST has the resources it needs to fulfill its role
    in promoting innovation, increasing our competitiveness, and
    enhancing our national security. Thank you again, and I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Esty follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full
    Committee for a statement, Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
    Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or
    NIST, is an agency that is central to the federal role in
    advancing science, promoting innovation, and creating a more
    prosperous nation. I look forward to hearing from our
    distinguished witness, Dr. May, this morning.
        It would be almost impossible to overstate the importance
    of NIST, the federal agency that promotes U.S. innovation and
    competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
    and technology. In his first address to Congress, President
    George Washington said, ``Uniformity in the currency, weights,
    and measures of the United States is an object of great
    importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.''
        This responsibility was first given to an office in the
    Treasury Department but then was moved over to the National
    Bureau of Standards, NIST's predecessor, in 1901. Every
    industry and nearly every technology relies on the measurement
    and standards work at NIST, from the smart electric power grid,
    to the computer chips, to building safety. NIST supplies
    industry, academia, and government and other users with
    thousands of standard reference materials in addition to doing
    much of the testing and validation work in their own
    laboratories.
        Along with working with industry, academia, state and local
    governments, and consumer groups to develop U.S. standards,
    NIST accomplishes its mission of promoting U.S. innovation and
    competitiveness through their research laboratories, Centers of
    Excellence, and manufacturing programs.
        I was happy to see the proposed increase in the fiscal year
    2017 budget request for those programs, and I hope that
    Congress will fully support the request. In particular, I was
    happy to see the proposed increases in NIST's programs to
    develop the measurement tools needed to support the engineering
    biology research and biomanufacturing.
        Engineering biology research and technologies are very
    exciting and have the potential to solve some of society's
    greatest challenges, including providing food for a growing
    population, improving human health, reducing our dependency on
    fossil fuels, and dramatically transforming manufacturing.
    Given the promise of this research and its applications, I
    introduced the Engineering Biology Research and Development Act
    of 2015 with my Science Committee colleague Mr. Sensenbrenner.
        Additionally, I am pleased the President's budget
    recognizes the importance of NIST's role in American
    manufacturing. The budget proposes an increase for both the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or the MEP program, and
    the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, the NNMI.
        Finally, I'm happy to see NIST leadership in the area of
    forensic science and standards. The partnership between NIST
    and the Department of Justice must continue to recognize NIST's
    critical role in the development of technical standards for
    forensic evidence. However, I'd like to emphasize that NIST
    must ensure that forensic standards being developed are
    consistent with NIST's longstanding commitment to science and a
    fair and balanced standards-setting process.
        As I have said in the past, NIST may be the most important
    federal agency that most people have never heard of. I
    appreciate that there are many worthy programs across the
    government, and we cannot fund everything, but supporting the
    agency that promotes U.S. innovation and competitiveness should
    be an easy choice.
        Madam Chairwoman, I thank you again for holding this
    hearing, and I look forward to working with you and our
    colleagues to ensure that NIST has the resources it needs to
    fulfill its critical role. I thank you and yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        And I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
    Smith.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Dr. May, thank
    you for being here today as well.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology supports
    fundamental scientific research that is critical to American
    innovation and competitiveness. NIST helps maintain industrial
    and technical standards and manages cybersecurity guidelines
    for federal agencies. Our challenge is to set funding
    priorities that ensure America remains a leader in the global
    marketplace of ideas and products, while also being able to
    balance the government's budget.
        As Chairwoman Comstock pointed out, the area of proposed
    funding of $47 million for the National Network of
    Manufacturing Innovation program is of particular concern with
    the NIST fiscal year 2017 budget request. In 2014, this
    Committee and the full House approved H.R. 2996, the Revitalize
    American Manufacturing Innovation Act of 2014, or RAMI Act.
        The RAMI Act was subsequently included in the fiscal year
    2015 omnibus bill and signed into law by the President. This
    bill authorized up to $5 million per year for NNMI from NIST.
    The bulk of the program funding is to be transferred from the
    Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy budget. Why hasn't this happened? It must if
    the program is to continue.
        In addition, there are concerns surrounding the explosion
    at NIST that occurred when a senior officer with NIST Police
    Services attempted to manufacture meth in a NIST facility. It
    is surprising that a federal agency didn't know that a meth lab
    was being run on its property, and without an explosion, it
    might have never been discovered. The meth lab explosion and
    subsequent investigation have raised serious concerns about the
    safety and security of the entire NIST campus.
        Information obtained during this Committee's investigation
    of the meth lab at NIST appears to show a culture of waste,
    fraud, abuse, and misconduct at NIST Police Services. For
    example, time and attendance fraud occurred regularly at NIST
    Police Services. In one instance, 84 hours of overtime was
    recorded during a two week period while a full-time shift was
    being covered. If accurate, that would mean the officer worked
    16 hours a day, seven days a week. It also appears that police
    equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars is unaccounted for
    or missing from the police force.
        These unfortunate examples undermine NIST's mission to
    promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness, which
    enhances economic security and improves our quality of life.
        I hope to hear what steps have been taken in the wake of
    the meth lab explosion to prevent further misuse of taxpayers'
    dollars. Just as important is to find out why NIST continues to
    ignore the RAMI Act.
        I look forward to hearing from our witness today and yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        Now, let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is Dr.
    Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
    Technology and Director of the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology, NIST.
        Prior to his Congressional confirmation, Dr. May served as
    Acting NIST Director and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
    Standards and Technology since June 2014. Prior to that
    assignment, Dr. May was Associate Director for Laboratory
    Programs where he was responsible for oversight and direction
    of NIST's seven laboratory programs and served as the Principal
    Deputy to the NIST Director. In addition, Dr. May has led NIST
    research and measurement service programs in chemistry-related
    areas for more than 20 years.
        Dr. May received his undergraduate degree from Knoxville
    College and his Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the
    University of Maryland.
        I welcome you here today, and I now recognize Dr. May for
    five minutes to present his testimony.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIE E. MAY,

               UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS

                      AND TECHNOLOGY AND DIRECTOR,

                    NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS

                             AND TECHNOLOGY

        Dr. May. First, good morning to Committee Chairwoman
    Comstock.
        Full Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson,
    Subcommittee Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking Member Esty and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today to present the President's fiscal year
    2017 budget request from the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology.
        This budget request reflects the important role that NIST
    plays in American innovation, productivity, trade, and public
    safety. The measurement science and technology foundation that
    NIST provides is essential to accelerating American innovation
    through breakthroughs such as next-generation computing to
    strengthening the digital economy and more efficient wireless
    technology to overcome the spectrum crunch.
        Additionally, researchers supported by this budget will
    help embed NIST industrial center technologies to the factory
    floor, thereby extending NIST's success with the electronics
    industry to applications such as laser welding and
    bioengineering.
        To achieve our mission, the President has proposed a budget
    for us of slightly more than $1 billion, a $50 million increase
    over the enacted fiscal year 2016 budget. In addition to this
    discretionary request, the President has proposed an additional
    $2 billion in NIST mandatory funding to fully fund a network of
    45 institutes in the National Network for Manufacturing
    Innovation at $1.9 billion and an additional $100 million to
    renovate and modernize the NIST facilities.
        The President's budget continues to recognize the important
    role that the NIST laboratory programs play by requesting
    $730.5 million for our Scientific and Technical Research and
    Services account, basically our lab program. This is a $4.5
    million increase over the enacted fiscal year 2016 level. This
    increase will allow NIST to lay the foundation for next-
    generation computing and wireless revolution, transfer money-
    saving technology to the factory floor, and bring our precision
    engineering prowess to bear on emerging markets.
        The fiscal year 2017 request will also continue to fund
    critical work that we are doing in the areas of cybersecurity
    and forensics but with no additional request. However, we are
    requesting increases of $13.6 million for our Measurement
    Science for Future Computing Technologies and Applications
    program to position the United States to unlock the potential
    of future computing technologies.
        We are requesting an additional $2 million for advanced
    sensing manufacturing to accelerate research efforts targeting
    the development of advanced sensors, an additional $2 million
    for biomanufacturing and engineering biology to assure the
    quality of predictability in the design of synthetic biological
    systems, and $2 million for Advanced Communications Research to
    develop the measurement science and tools necessary to improve
    spectrum-sharing and increase spectrum efficiency of commercial
    wireless radiofrequency communication systems, an additional
    $4.8 million to assure that NIST's world-class neutron facility
    can continue to purchase the fuel needed to operate this
    critical facility, and finally, $2 million to expand our Lab-
    to-Market initiative, which focuses on transfer of technology
    from the government, the public sector through data-sharing and
    collaborative tools.
        To support our outreach to the manufacturing industry, NIST
    is requesting $189 million for our Industrial Technology
    Services account. That's an increase of $34 million.
        The requested $12 million increase for MEP will be used in
    fiscal year 2017 to complete the final round of a multiyear
    competition of our MEP centers and $22 million to support the
    NNMI program that would allow us to fund additional institutes
    and provide coordination for the network.
        To support our aging facilities, our Construction of
    Research Facilities, our CRF account, the request is $95
    million. This is actually a decrease of $24 million over fiscal
    year 2016.
        And at this point I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for
    its continuing strong support of the renovations of our aging
    and deteriorating infrastructure that would otherwise threaten
    our ability to deliver our mission.
        The CRF number is a decrease, as I said earlier, from the
    fiscal year 2016 enacted level, but it reflects a significant
    initial investment of $119 million in fiscal year 2016 to begin
    the renovation of our Radiation Physics building. At least $40
    million of the '17 request will fund the second phase of the
    multiyear renovation of that building, and the remaining $55
    million of the request will be used to fund maintenance,
    repair, improvements, and major renovations of our facilities
    in Gaithersburg, Colorado, and Hawaii.
        In conclusion, the fiscal year 2017 budget reflects the
    Administration's recognition of the important role that NIST
    plays in innovation, as well as the impact of the research that
    we do and the measurement services we provide in laying and
    maintaining the foundation for our nation's long-term job
    creation and prosperity.
        Through our laboratory programs, our outreach efforts, and
    our standards development work, we are dedicated to providing
    U.S. industry with the tools it needs to innovate, compete, and
    flourish in this fierce global economy.
        Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to continuing to work with
    you and Members of the Subcommittee, and would now be happy to
    answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. May follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you very much.
        As you discussed and we've discussed here, NIST will
    continue to fund the works in the areas of cybersecurity, and
    I've certainly been very interested in that given all of the
    recent problems that we're running into there. So I wanted to
    ask, of the $74.2 million request in cybersecurity, more than
    half supports R&D efforts. Can you just give us a picture of
    some of that R&D taking place and how academia and industry are
    involved and just, you know, a little view on that if you
    could.
        Dr. May. Well, we have a number of efforts in
    cybersecurity. First of all, we have a very robust laboratory-
    based research program in cybersecurity, but this is an area
    that is moving very, very rapidly, and we saw the need for
    reaching out and including industry in this. And we established
    our National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence where we work
    with 22 companies in that area to work on problems that they
    see as a priority and take our standards that we developed,
    based on our authority, and put them into practice, working
    with these 22 companies. That is working very well, and we
    expect that work to continue in the future.
        We have a NICE program, which is the National Initiative on
    Cybersecurity Education, where we are trying to educate the
    next generation on the value of cybersecurity and actually
    provide training in that realm. And we are improving or
    increasing our bench depth in cryptography both from a
    defensive, as well as an offensive perspective if you will.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. One of the things that I hear
    from the companies in my district is how difficult it is for
    people to get clearances. And, so oftentimes you get this
    talent, and these kids are really good and want to come out and
    work in this area so they can work for the government, but the
    clearance process takes forever. Have you found that a problem
    as you're trying to get talent within the government, too?
        Dr. May. Well, certainly it's a challenge in that area
    because there's a limited supply. However, we are very
    aggressive and we are, I think, addressing that issue.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Are you able to shorten the time
    because the problem is, you know, these kids are coming out,
    they're getting recruited by a lot of private companies where
    they're going to make more money than in the government. So if
    we're going to get them into the government and have them
    working for us, we need to make sure we can streamline that
    process and not lose them because it's sort of bureaucracy
    within.
        Dr. May. I could not agree more.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Right. All right.
        Let's see. How do you, given the importance of
    cybersecurity and it's certainly in the forefront of our minds
    on a lot of these issues we're dealing with, how do you decide
    to increase spending in other areas and pick your priorities on
    this? And do you feel comfortable where we're at on the
    cybersecurity budget?
        Dr. May. The Committee has been very generous to us over
    the last several years in cybersecurity, and certainly we think
    we have the resources now to deliver our mission in that area.
    And we look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure
    we can titrate this as we go forward to make sure that we
    maintain the resources necessary to deliver our mission and
    work with both government and industry to improve the
    cybersecurity posture for our country.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. Thank you. And I know that NIST
    is hosting its next Cybersecurity Framework Workshop on April 6
    and 7. Can you give us a little insight into what changes to
    the cybersecurity framework that we might see featured there--
    --
        Dr. May. Well, we----
        Chairwoman Comstock. --give us a little preview of that?
        Dr. May. We actually don't know.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Oh.
        Dr. May. The reason for this meeting is to work with
    industry to determine what changes we might need to make to the
    Framework, how quickly we might do that, and how. So this is an
    information-gathering meeting so that we know how to blaze the
    path forward with the Framework.
        Chairwoman Comstock. All right. Thank you.
        And I now yield to Ms. Esty for her five minutes.
        Ms. Esty. Again, thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for
    holding today's hearing.
        Dr. May, as a member of the Science Committee as well as
    the Transportation Committee, I understand the importance of
    reliable communications technology, particularly in our new,
    developing advanced transportation systems. From railroads to
    tech startups, our companies depend on advanced communications
    and spectrum to be able to communicate in real time.
        Dr. May, NIST is asking for a $2 million increase to $15
    million in funding for its Measurement Sciences program to
    support advanced communications networks. Can you please
    describe for us the challenges we face with the rapid advances
    we're experiencing on our communications technologies and how
    NIST intends to address these challenges through the proposed
    increase?
        Dr. May. Well, these activities will be focused primarily
    in our newly--or recently created Communications Technologies
    Laboratory. And we have three main work streams within that
    laboratory. One is public safety communications to improve the
    technology and provide the standards necessary to build out the
    nationwide LTE network for first responders. So we're
    responsible for the measurement standards and testing to make
    sure that we can do this and do this in a manner that we
    provide open competition for the vendors of devices that would
    want to play in that space. Obviously, there are some
    measurement and standards issues associated with with spectrum-
    sharing and spectrum efficiency.
        And finally, we are working with players around the world
    to define what 5G will look like and to implement that to sort
    of make sure that the United States is not left behind when it
    comes to next-generation communications technologies.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you. That's very helpful. And this is
    ongoing, particularly on the public safety front. I can tell
    you in the 41 cities and towns I represent, this is an ongoing
    challenge about interoperability and their ability to
    communicate with each other and coordinate, so I hope we can
    move rapidly forward.
        So those investments the taxpayers are making on the local
    level are really wise investments that are going to be good for
    a number of years and they're not going to have to, two years
    from now, change their whole systems out again, which will be
    very challenging.
        Connecticut has a thriving manufacturing community in my
    district. From Jonal Labs, which does aerospace and work for
    NASA, to United Technologies Corporation, to Click Bond, to
    Becton Dickinson Connecticut. Companies manufacture a broad
    range of products, aerospace and bond fasteners. Through my
    conversations with these companies, one common theme emerges,
    and that is a concern about workforce readiness. Do our young
    people have the skills necessary to compete in modern
    manufacturing?
        As you know, a strong domestic manufacturing base is
    essential for high-quality jobs and for a living wage for many
    people in this country. Can you explain to us a little bit how
    the MEP's ExporTech program operates and what it's doing to
    expand overseas markets and tech transfer for U.S. companies
    and the goals of this program in the fiscal year 2017 budget?
        Dr. May. Well, what we want to do is work with other
    entities within government to 1) demonstrate that manufacturing
    in fact is a viable career path for young folks and get the
    word out. We have established a National Manufacturing Day that
    takes place in early October every year where we point to the
    future, at least try to get the young folks to see and
    visualize the future that manufacturing is cool; there are
    good, high-paying jobs; but more than that, working in
    manufacturing is really being truly American because we need to
    bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. We need to
    be an exporter and not only an importer of goods. So we are
    working with the entire community to try to strengthen
    manufacturing and make sure that we get the word out that there
    is a future in manufacturing, and it's critical to our country.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. And I suspect that the
    Ranking Member of the full Committee will pick up with
    biomanufacturing, which I would love to ask some questions
    about, but my time is expired. Thank you very much, and I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
    Palmer for five minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Dr. May, NIST has its own police force. How much do you
    spend each year for that group?
        Dr. May. About $8 million, sir.
        Mr. Palmer. About $8 million. What activities or
    investigations justify having a police unit within NIST?
        Dr. May. Well, primarily, we've historically had a police
    force at NIST, and the Federal Protective Service has granted
    us the ability to maintain that on our campus. We also have
    some fairly sensitive assets that I won't go into detail about
    here--but I will do in private conversations with the
    committee--that have to be maintained.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, is it a----
        Dr. May. So that was the historical basis.
        Mr. Palmer. Is it a police force or a security force?
        Dr. May. Actually, we have both. We have a perimeter
    security force that guards the perimeter, and we actually have
    a police force that is responsible for policing the campus.
        Mr. Palmer. What do you spend on this perimeter security
    force?
        Dr. May. The exact numbers I'll have to get to you, but
    that is a contract police force.
        Mr. Palmer. It's a contract----
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. --force? All right. Does your police force have
    the authority to make arrests?
        Dr. May. They do have the authority to make arrests, and
    they have made arrests.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. How many officers does NIST employee in
    that force?
        Dr. May. As I said, I don't have the numbers right before
    me, but I would imagine with the police force, if we were fully
    staffed, 15 to 20, and the external security, probably another
    dozen. But I will get those numbers to you specifically.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. And I assume they're armed?
        Dr. May. Well, I just don't know that it's appropriate for
    me to discuss that operation in detail----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, you're----
        Dr. May. --but I can provide those numbers to you.
        Mr. Palmer. I don't think there's any issue here with that.
    I think it's pretty evident that they are armed, and what I
    want to know is, is it side arms, is it small arms, is it
    military-style weapons? How are they equipped?
        Dr. May. Sir, I'll be happy to provide that as a matter of
    record to the Committee.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. How long would that take?
        Dr. May. We can get that to you by the end of the day if
    you want.
        Mr. Palmer. You outsourced your security. Why don't you
    outsource your police force?
        Dr. May. Well, we are a science and technology agency, and
    knowing that, I've recently asked for an assessment of our
    overall security posture by three external security experts.
    They have given us their thoughts on the rightsizing and nature
    of security force for our campus, and the questions that you
    ask are being considered.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you have them on one campus or do you have
    multiple locations where your police are employed?
        Dr. May. We have police on our Gaithersburg campus and on
    our Boulder campus.
        Mr. Palmer. You know, I----
        Dr. May. Boulder, Colorado.
        Mr. Palmer. I believe we have 70-something federal agencies
    that have armed agents, including the EPA that has spent
    several million dollars, and I don't know if it bothers anybody
    else but it seems that it's almost like we've militarized
    federal agencies. And I just don't understand why we have to
    have so many agencies with their own armed agents providing
    security when you could outsource that.
        And I commend you for outsourcing your security force. I
    understand you have certain specific issues that would require
    protection, but I am very concerned about so many federal
    agencies having armed agents and being armed with military-
    style weapons. So if you would get back with that information,
    and I think it will be helpful if you look at outsourcing your
    police force.
        Dr. May. Certainly, that issue is among the recommendations
    that we've gotten from our three security experts, and we are
    mulling over that issue now exactly how to move forward to
    improve the security posture for both of our campuses.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you for your answers, Dr. May.
        I'll yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I'll now recognize Ms.
    Bonamici, who is also sitting in as our Ranking Member now.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Dr. May, welcome back to the Committee. I want to
    start by thanking you and your team at NIST for working with
    Oregon's Manufacturing Extension Partnership OMEP. I know they
    appreciate the collaboration. And since 2003, OMEP has helped
    with creating or maintaining more than 15,000 manufacturing
    jobs in Oregon. And you talked about the importance of getting
    the word out there that these are good jobs. I think you said
    cool, cool jobs, and I want to mention that I went out to tour
    Fort George Brewery in my district. They got some help with
    OMEP to help with their canning process. That was pretty cool.
        I also have in my district A.R.E. Manufacturing. That's a
    contract shop in Newberg, Oregon, that specializes in making
    precision equipment components for manufacturers. By working
    with OMEP to develop a job-training program for their
    employees, they were able to increase their entry-level hiring
    pool and hire more qualified people, and so I appreciate all
    the work that NIST has done with the MEP programs across the
    country but particularly those I'm familiar with in Oregon.
        Dr. May, over the past several years, our nation has
    experienced historic and devastating natural disasters, and
    numerous communities across the country are still recovering
    and rebuilding. NIST is the lead agency for two important
    natural disaster programs, the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
    Program. Now, the Pacific Northwest is especially prone to
    earthquakes. We are sitting off the Cascadia subduction zone in
    the Northwest, and we are overdue, so it's not a question of if
    there will be an earthquake; it's when. So can you describe the
    role that NIST plays in these programs both as the lead agency,
    as well as your role in working on research to improve the
    performance of buildings and infrastructure in the face of a
    disaster?
        Dr. May. Well, we have a major program in our Engineering
    Laboratory, a part of which used to be a Building and Fire
    Research Laboratory, to provide the basic science and
    engineering technology to modify the construction of buildings
    for the areas to the hazards in that geographic locale. And
    that's a longstanding program, and with support for this
    Committee, we have been able to strengthen the program.
        But we also coordinate NEHRP where we work with other
    agencies to develop new standards and codes based on knowledge
    that we gain from natural disasters that we actually can't
    control that we can sort of try to respond to them and make our
    built environment more resilient and resistant to things that
    we can't control.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Certainly, more investment at the
    front end saves lives and property later.
        Also, Dr. May, federally funded research has led to many
    innovations. We've heard about some of those today: GPS,
    barcodes, lifesaving medications and treatments. In this
    Committee we often hear about the challenges and obstacles to
    successfully transferring federally funded research from the
    lab to the private marketplace. The budget proposes an increase
    in technology transfer activities to develop data-sharing and
    collaborative tools and services. So can you elaborate, please,
    on the efforts, how these efforts would help enable the
    transfer of the federally funded research to the marketplace?
        Dr. May. Well, certainly, as you mentioned and others have
    mentioned, there are a lot of very important technologies and
    tools that are being developed in our laboratories, but it's a
    very large enterprise and we don't right now have ready access
    to the information of the various components. For example, if
    I'm in the private sector and I want to make something, there
    might be inventions across several federal agencies where I
    could pull that together if I only knew that they were there.
    So our primary effort is to develop a resource, one-stop
    shopping if you will, to look at the investments and the
    technologies that are being developed in the public sector that
    can be brought to bear to develop new technologies, new
    inventions in the private sector.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much.
        I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        And I now recognize Mr. Loudermilk for five minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Dr. May,
    thank you for being here.
        During my first year in Congress here, I've been quite
    amazed. You know, we live in reality TV show, conspiracy TV
    show, those things dominate our culture today, but the more
    I've been here, the more I see that a lot of things that happen
    in the federal government would make--we feed a lot of the
    information to these. But can we bring up the first slide here?
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Loudermilk. I want to bring up an incident that I'm
    sure you're aware of that happened in May of 2015 where one of
    the senior NIST police officers was operating a meth lab that
    apparently there was an explosion at the agency. He was using a
    vacant building to actually cook meth. Of course, thankfully,
    that police officer is currently in jail for manufacturing
    methamphetamine, but the fact that he was able to smuggle the
    necessary materials into a vacant NIST building is
    embarrassing, but it also raises serious questions about safety
    and security of the whole facility, as well as the people who
    live and work in Gaithersburg. I'm sure you, too, would agree
    that the meth lab explosion was a serious incident. I'm sure
    you're aware of that incident. Do you feel that was a serious--
    --
        Dr. May. It certainly was, sir.
        Mr. Loudermilk. It was. Is that one of the most serious
    incidents that has ever happened at NIST?
        Dr. May. From a perspective of the----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Since you've been there?
        Dr. May. --of embarrassment--I've been there 45 years.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        Dr. May. I've been there a long time. On an embarrassment
    scale, yes. In terms of actual structural damage, no, because
    the structural damage was very, very minimal. We had a fire in
    one of our laboratories. So in terms of destruction of
    property, this ranks very low because the building that this
    activity took place in was designed for hazardous--it used to
    be called a Hazards Lab as a matter of fact, and it has blowout
    panels in case there is a pressure buildup. The panels behaved
    as they should. They were placed back in the next day, and
    there was minimal structural damage to the building.
        Mr. Loudermilk. So the primary thing, though, is an
    embarrassment?
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. So you don't feel that there's a security
    concern or that the money you're spending on the officers, law
    enforcement officers at NIST actually committing felonies on
    property, that's not a concern?
        Dr. May. Oh, that is a big concern.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Dr. May. That is a big concern. As I had mentioned before
    you came in, after this incident took place, I requested input
    from security experts from three other sources that----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Dr. May. that operate environments like us to give us their
    input----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Dr. May. --on how we can strengthen the security posture of
    our campus beyond this, and all indicated that in a situation
    similar to this it would be hard to anticipate what a trusted
    member of your security staff might do.
        Mr. Loudermilk. And I understand it, and I apologize for
    just popping in, but I am dealing with homeland security issues
    as well, which is very important.
        But after the explosion, you briefed this Committee staff
    on the incident. In the briefing you referred to the explosion
    as a near miss. You stand by that characterization that it was,
    you know, a near miss since no one was hurt or----
        Dr. May. Well, it opened our eyes and made us--well, for
    one, it compelled me to get some outside expertise or input on
    how we might strengthen our security posture and to take a deep
    dive----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Dr. May. --actually. So I guess near miss----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        Dr. May. --that no one was seriously hurt. And again, it
    opened our eyes that we needed to take a deep look and
    investigation into our security personnel.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Can we bring up slide two? I want to
    make sure we get to this, too, as our time is running down.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Loudermilk. This is an email from your Chief of Staff
    Kevin Kimball in the aftermath of the meth lab explosion.
    Referring to the explosion, Mr. Kimball writes, ``Can't see how
    this rises to an audit risk. Don't remember briefing the
    auditors after the plutonium''--assume incident--``and that was
    a thousand times more of a risk.'' What incident is he talking
    about that was a thousand times worse than a meth lab
    exploding?
        Dr. May. Well, that was an incident that took place in our
    Boulder laboratory, I think, in 2007 where a small amount of
    plutonium was released into the sewer system based on some
    research that we were doing out there.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Into the sewer system?
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Do you agree that that was a thousand times
    worse than the meth lab?
        Dr. May. Well, I had not thought about how I would quantify
    that, but certainly I think that in fact in terms of danger to
    the public, yes, that was more serious than that particular
    incident.
        Mr. Loudermilk. So was this plutonium incident released--or
    reported to this Committee or any Members of Congress or----
        Dr. May. It was, and in fact the then-Acting Director
    testified before this Committee about that incident.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Are there any other incidents that we
    should know about that are a thousand times or a hundred times
    worse than the meth lab?
        Dr. May. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Well, I think the other questions I
    have have already been answered, Madam Chairwoman, and so I
    yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Okay. I now recognize Mr. Tonko for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Dr. May.
        As a representative for the capital region of New York, I
    realize that moving toward an innovation economy is the key to
    our economic growth. With that in mind, I'm pleased to witness
    our nation's renewed desire to invest in high-tech
    manufacturing and in innovation economy. I see great hope for
    these efforts, especially inspired by the formulation of the
    National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI.
        I have some questions this morning that aim to seek clarity
    in the NIST NNMI selection process as we move forward.
        In December of 2015, NIST published a notice of intent that
    indicated that NIST was especially interested in two areas of
    focus, including collaborative manufacturing robots and
    biopharmaceuticals manufacturing. However, in the Federal
    Funding Opportunity, the FFO, neither topic was mentioned.
        This year, the Department of Defense issued a request for
    information for new manufacturing innovation institutes, and
    the Department of Defense listed six technical focus areas
    under consideration, including two topics: one, the assistive
    and soft robotics; and bioengineering for regenerative medicine
    as another, which are similar to NIST's area of focus.
    Presumably, NIST and DOD would not want to select areas, I
    would imagine, that are too much alike.
        So, Dr. May, can you further discuss the process that NIST
    would use or will use to select a proposal?
        Dr. May. Well, please excuse the colloquialism, but for the
    December announcement I'll just say my bad. What we intended to
    do was address the concern that you've expressed that we were
    looking in our Institutes that we would sponsor to the
    Department of Commerce not to duplicate anything that was
    ongoing or planned by the Department of Energy or the
    Department of Defense or any other federal agency that would be
    standing up a manufacturing institute. And we gave two
    examples, the examples of biomanufacturing and engineering
    robotics were just two examples.
        And in retrospect, they probably should not have been
    called out because it did cause confusion. But I am here to
    guarantee to you that our process and the process that we
    launched about a week ago, week-and-a-half ago, is one that
    will be truly open, and we will not support any institute that
    is already in existence or planned by any other federal agency.
        Mr. Tonko. So, as you go forward, the coordination with DOD
    would be----
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Tonko. --a very strong part of your interoperations?
        Dr. May. It will be, it has been, and through our Advanced
    Manufacturing Program Office, we actually provide the
    coordination and glue for the network, so we are in constant
    contact there. There is a call that I'm a part of, and with our
    representatives from the National Economic Council, as well as
    DOE and DOD on a regular basis, so we are in constant
    communication.
        Mr. Tonko. And could one agency decide to not select a
    proposal that was too similar to a proposed--a proposal that
    another agency is considering?
        Dr. May. As a matter of fact, I think we have a process in
    place where it wouldn't be just the agency decides. We would
    decide as a collective because we are trying to operate a
    network, although it has individual nodes, but we're trying to
    work on behalf of this again is a cliche, but the American
    people, and certainly we don't want to have any duplicative
    activities.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, I know a number of institutions in my
    district have specific abilities in these disciplines, so I'm
    just concerned. Is NIST planning sequential awards?
        Dr. May. Can you explain what you mean by sequential?
        Mr. Tonko. Well, as you go forward, will there be
    additional awards that NIST is looking at where you would use
    the initial pool of proposals for future awards?
        Dr. May. Yes. What we are planning to do is to, with this
    call, essentially establish a queue, and we have resources to
    fund one institute from our fiscal year 2016 funds. The funds
    requested in the '17 budget should allow us to establish two
    additional ones, and we would establish the queue based on the
    call that is out at present.
        Mr. Tonko. Okay. I would strongly encourage the
    continuation of some of these thematics that you've outlined. I
    think they're critical to our manufacturing base, and
    certainly, I think that there's a great contribution that many
    of our higher ed centers and private sectors could offer
    through a collaborative. So I'm a very strong fan of NNMI and
    hope it continues in a way that's targeted to the strength that
    we have in our nation----
        Dr. May. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. --to strengthen us across the board.
        Dr. May. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. And with that----
        Chairwoman Comstock. And I now recognize Mr. Hultgren for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate it so
    much.
        And thank you, Dr. May, for being here. I do really
    appreciate the work at NIST and see how important cooperation
    is, communication is, and wanted just to ask you a few
    questions. I apologize. I've got a couple hearings going on at
    the same time, so if any of this has been covered, I'm sorry. I
    wasn't able to hear about it, but I did want to get some
    answers on this.
        I wondered, have any program funds come from DOE's EERE
    program, as was stipulated in the bipartisan RAMI Act, which
    was something I supported and cosponsored? If not, why not, and
    is there any plan for funds to be transferred from EERE to the
    Department of Commerce to carry out NNMI in the future?
        Dr. May. Well, first of all, we are very appreciative of
    your support of the RAMI bill because that authorized us to,
    one, to sponsor institutes from the Department of Commerce, and
    it also gave NIST the authority to set up our Advanced
    Manufacturing Program Office to coordinate the activities for
    the network.
        However, that was an authorization bill and not an
    appropriation bill, and the bill says the Secretary of Energy
    may, it didn't say shall, and to this date, this hasn't
    happened. But we have gotten an appropriation in '16 for $25
    million to begin this process, and we're going use funds from
    that to support at least one network in '16, and with the
    request in '17, two more, and to begin activities of
    coordination, information-sharing within the network.
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, I do hope it moves forward. Were you
    involved in or were you aware of any discussions between the
    Commerce Department and the Energy Department about carrying
    out the RAMI Act after it was signed into law? It sounds like
    there was some conversations there. Were you a part of those?
        Dr. May. Yes, I was.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And that was really what you're
    referring to now where it was the difference between whether it
    was appropriations or an act?
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Well, again, hopefully, that can be
    clarified. Hopefully, these important programs, some in
    Illinois, can move forward and absolutely will be making a
    difference.
        I wonder, how will NIST evaluate competing proposals from
    different industry sectors? Will NIST treat each industry as
    equal and decide on the basis of the proposal details and
    private financial contributions when you're looking at the RAMI
    Act?
        Dr. May. Well, in short, I think we are going to cut the
    best deal for the American people.
        Mr. Hultgren. What does that----
        Dr. May. I----
        Mr. Hultgren. Can you explain it a little bit better for
    me?
        Dr. May. Well, what we're looking for in these institutes
    are institutes that have the potential to be sustainable. They
    need to address one of the needed areas in the advanced
    manufacturing domain. And we will look at all proposals and
    select the one based, one, on no duplication of activities
    currently ongoing within other institutes and address the
    greatest need, the strongest partnership among industry and
    academia.
        Mr. Hultgren. So your plan is to treat each industry as
    equal and truly decide on the basis of proposal details and
    private financial contributions and not have a preset agenda--
    --
        Dr. May. Exactly.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And how do you plan to integrate new
    centers with existing ones?
        Dr. May. Well, new centers will be a part of the network,
    and they will have the services of the NIST Advanced
    Manufacturing Office to provide them with best practices,
    information-sharing, so they will again be a member of the
    team.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. So, again, the RAMI Act, again, I was
    proud to support that, proud to be a cosponsor of it, but also
    a big reason why I support it was my understanding was it was a
    merit-based, nonpolitical process for----
        Dr. May. Yes.
        Mr. Hultgren. --soliciting, evaluating, and competitively
    funding new manufacturing innovation centers. That's still your
    commitment to----
        Dr. May. That's still our commitment.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. And we want to obviously see that
    happen. Hopefully, this will continue to move forward. We all
    agree it's important. It's been a little disappointing and
    frustrating on our part that it hasn't moved more quickly, and
    my hope is that that will happen soon and that the commitment
    that you've made today and previous commitments of keeping
    politics out of this and really looking at industries that are
    best fit and can put the best proposals together will be the
    ones that are receiving the opportunity in the centers.
        So I'm out of time. I will yield back to the Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Dr. May. And, sir, that is our commitment to you and to the
    Subcommittee.
        Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Dr. May.
        And I'd like to thank you also for your testimony and the
    members for their questions. And the record will remain open
    for two weeks for additional written comments and written
    questions from members. We appreciate your work on this
    important subject and look forward to continuing to work with
    you, Dr. May.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        Dr. May. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Willie E. May

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]