[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                         SETTING THE STANDARDS:
                     STRENGTHENING U.S. LEADERSHIP
                         IN TECHNICAL STANDARDS

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

                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 17, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-49

                               __________

 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 
 47-059PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023      
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa, 
PAUL TONKO, New York                     Ranking Member
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS


                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S
                         
                         

                             March 17, 2022

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    10
    Written Statement............................................    11

Statement by Representative Randy Feenstra, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    12
    Written Statement............................................    13

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    14

                               Witnesses:

Dr. James K. Olthoff, Acting Director, National Institute of 
  Standards and Technology (NIST)
    Oral Statement...............................................    16
    Written Statement............................................    18

Ms. Mary Saunders, Vice President, Government Relations and 
  Public Policy, American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
    Oral Statement...............................................    29
    Written Statement............................................    31

Dr. Alissa Cooper, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 
  Technology Policy and Cisco Fellow, Cisco Systems Inc.
    Oral Statement...............................................    42
    Written Statement............................................    44

Mr. Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove L.L.P
    Oral Statement...............................................    56
    Written Statement............................................    58

Discussion.......................................................    66

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. James K. Olthoff, Acting Director, National Institute of 
  Standards and Technology (NIST)................................    86

Ms. Mary Saunders, Vice President, Government Relations and 
  Public Policy, American National Standards Institute (ANSI)....    89

Dr. Alissa Cooper, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 
  Technology Policy and Cisco Fellow, Cisco Systems Inc..........    92

Mr. Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove L.L.P............    94

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Documents submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    ``Standards as a Tool for Achieving Public Policy and 
      Regulatory Goals--An Initiative of the International 
      Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS),'' 
      Information Technology Industry Council....................   100
    Letter from Mr. Jeff Grove, Vice President, Global Policy, 
      Cooperation, and Communications, ASTM International........   102


                         SETTING THE STANDARDS:

                     STRENGTHENING U.S. LEADERSHIP

                         IN TECHNICAL STANDARDS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

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

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom, Hon. 
Haley Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at 
any time.
    Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that 
today's Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. 
We've got a packed room with Congresswoman Stevens and 
Congressman Feenstra here, and obviously a great panel who is 
coming before us virtually. Members are certainly welcome to 
join us in the Committee Room, but recognizing that we are 
adjusting, we are transitioning from all virtual to hybrid to 
back in person, just a couple of reminders to the Members about 
the conduct of this hearing. Members and staff who are 
attending in person may choose to be masked. It is not a 
requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive 
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask 
while present. Members who are attending virtually know the 
drill. You keep your video feed on as long as you are present 
in the hearing. Members are responsible for their own 
microphones. Please keep your microphones muted unless you are 
speaking. Finally, if Members wish to submit anything for the 
record, please email it to the Committee Clerk, whose email 
address was circulated prior to the hearing.
    So good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Research and Technology to explore technical 
standards and the role in society, innovation, and U.S. 
competitiveness. A special welcome to our distinguished panel 
of witnesses.
    Technical standards are often overlooked in conversations 
about U.S. competitiveness as policymakers focus on more easily 
understood topics like trade, taxes, regulation. However, 
technical standards are essential to U.S. competitiveness and 
to the global economy. Standards ensure that your car is safe, 
your building is resilient, and for those of you tuning in 
online, standards ensure you can stream this hearing from your 
device wherever you are.
    One of the greatest things about the American standards 
system is that the idea with the most technical merit wins the 
day. Many international standards bodies have adopted that 
model in no small part because of its success. For the last 
century, U.S. industry has been a dominant player in 
international standards. For example, the--Michigan's own Ford 
and GM (General Motors) help to set auto safety standards of 
yesterday and are pioneering the electric vehicle standards of 
tomorrow.
    Other nations, both our allies and adversaries, are 
increasingly viewing technical standards as a key part of their 
domestic technology competitiveness strategy. Within the last 
year, both the European Union and the Chinese Government laid 
out ambitious plans to gain supremacy in international 
standards setting. These goals are legitimate as long as those 
nations continue to adhere to the merit-based model for 
standards development. Allow me to repeat that. As long as they 
continue to adhere to the merit-based model for standards 
development.
    We also have seen reports of nations attempting to 
underhand the process and--like coordinated voting to pass 
suboptimal standards that favor domestic industries. To 
maintain U.S. competitiveness and push back on unfair tactics, 
we must ensure U.S. stakeholders are well-represented and well-
prepared at the standards-setting meetings. At the same time, 
we must be cautious about any heavy-handed government policies 
that risk doing more harm than good. It's a fine balance.
    The United States has long benefited from an open, 
industry-led, bottom-up approach to most standards setting. 
Proposals that respond to real or perceived risk to U.S. 
competitiveness by restricting participation or asserting more 
government control will almost certainly come back to bite us.
    There is no single solution, but there is one obvious step 
that we can take now, that is to properly resource NIST 
(National Institute of Standards and Technology) to do its 
important job. NIST monitors U.S. representation in 
international standards bodies and leads the intergovernmental 
committee charged with coordinating U.S. engagement in 
international bodies. NIST also plays the role of convener--we 
know this all too well on this Committee--bringing together 
stakeholders to facilitate the development of standards and 
meet national priorities.
    Importantly, we cannot expect success if Federal agencies 
charged with advancing U.S. competitiveness must work with too 
few resources, limited authorities, and crumbling 
infrastructure. Recently, the House passed my bipartisan 
legislation. It came through this Committee. The NIST for the 
Future Act, which would increase the agency's budget by over 18 
percent this year and double it over the next decade. As it 
appears now, NIST simply does not have the resources or the 
staff to be fully engaged in international standards-setting 
activities. Looking ahead, I want to encourage my colleagues to 
consider the importance of bolstering NIST at its core.
    We again are going to thank our witnesses. This is an 
exciting day on this Committee to talk about standards, this 
critical role that is sometimes overlooked that NIST plays in 
the U.S. Government. And with full disclosure, I have had the 
sincere privilege throughout my career to work with NIST, to 
spend time in Gaithersburg, to meet the employees and the 
phenomenal civil servants of this agency. So, again, today is a 
real treat.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Research and Technology to explore technical 
standards and their role in society, innovation, and U.S. 
competitiveness. A special welcome to our distinguished panel 
of witnesses.
    Technical standards are often overlooked in conversations 
about U.S. competitiveness, as policymakers focus on more 
easily understood topics like taxes, trade, and regulation. 
However, technical standards are essential to U.S. 
competitiveness and to the global economy. Standards ensure 
your car is safe, your building is resilient, and for those of 
you tuning in online, standards ensure you can stream this 
hearing from your device wherever you are.
    One of the greatest things about the American standards 
system is that the idea with the most technical merit wins the 
day. Many international standards bodies have adopted that 
model in no small part because of its success. For the last 
century, U.S. industry has been a dominant player in 
international standards. For example, the Michigan's own Ford 
and GM helped set the auto-safety standards of yesterday and 
are pioneering the electric vehicle standards of tomorrow.
    Other nations--both our allies and our adversaries--are 
increasingly viewing technical standards as a key part of their 
domestic technology competitiveness strategy. Within the last 
year, both the European Union and the Chinese government laid 
out ambitious plans to gain supremacy in international 
standards setting. These goals are legitimate as long as those 
nations continue to adhere to the merit-based model for 
standards development. However, we have also seen reports of 
nations attempting underhanded tactics like coordinated voting 
to pass suboptimal standards that favor their domestic 
industries.
    To maintain U.S. competitiveness and push back on unfair 
tactics, we must ensure U.S. stakeholders are well represented 
and well prepared at standards setting meetings. At the same 
time, we must be cautious about any heavy-handed government 
policies that risk doing more harm than good. The United States 
has long benefited from an open, industry-led, bottom-up 
approach to most standard setting. Proposals that respond to 
real or perceived risks to U.S. competitiveness by restricting 
participation or asserting more government control will almost 
certainly come back to bite us.
    There is no silver bullet, but there is one obvious step we 
can take now and that is to properly resource NIST to do its 
important job. NIST monitors U.S. representation in 
international standards bodies and leads the intergovernmental 
committee charged with coordinating U.S. engagement in 
international bodies. NIST also plays the role of convener, 
bringing together stakeholders to facilitate the development of 
standards that meet national priorities.
    Importantly, we cannot expect success if Federal agencies 
charged with advancing U.S. competitiveness must work with too 
few resources, limited authorities, and crumbling 
infrastructure. Recently, the House passed my bipartisan 
legislation, The NIST for the Future Act, which would increase 
the agency's STRS budget by over 18 percent this year-and 
double it over the next decade. As it appears now, NIST simply 
does not have the resources or the staff to be fully engaged in 
international standard setting activities. Looking ahead, I 
encourage my colleagues in Congress to consider the importance 
of bolstering NIST at its core.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. 
I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas for how we can better 
support U.S. stakeholders in international standards.

    Chairwoman Stevens. And before I recognize Ranking Member 
Feenstra for his opening remarks, I would like to ask for 
unanimous consent to enter into the record a fact sheet on 
technical standards from the Information Technology Industry 
Council. So ordered.
    The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Mr. Feenstra for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. It's wonderful 
to be here in person today for this Subcommittee's first hybrid 
hearing. And I want to say happy St. Patrick's Day to all. 
Also, thank you to our witnesses for joining us today to share 
your expert testimony on how the U.S. can be--can strengthen 
its leadership in technical standards.
    When we consider the policies that keep America--American 
business competitive, standards sometimes fly under the radar. 
But they are a--foundational to our industry and to our 
manufacturing industry. They make it possible for cell phones 
to connect calls, electronic devices to plug into outlets, and 
for laptops to connect to Wi-Fi around the world. They serve as 
the building blocks for product development and help ensure 
functionality, interactivity, and safety. And that in turn 
helps keep America efficient and competitive.
    Unlike most countries that have a top-down, government-led 
approach, the United States has a bottom-up, industry-led 
approach to standards setting. We employ a voluntary system in 
which both standard development and implementation are driven 
by stakeholder needs. This market-driven approach enables 
competition, ensures transparency, and takes advantage of 
building consensus to drive us to the best possible outcomes.
    Through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
NIST, the government supports this industry-led work. NIST is a 
trusted, unbiased partner to industry and provides technical 
assistance through reference materials, data, and 
instrumentation, which often directly inform voluntary 
standards. The NIST Director is designed by Congress to be the 
Presidential--President's principal advisor on standard policy 
as it relates to the Nation's technological and innovation 
competitiveness. NIST also helps coordinate processes and 
policies between multiple government agencies to improve 
efficiency.
    NIST chairs an--interagency committees on standard policy, 
which is currently examining and coordinating Federal agency 
standard policies for advanced communication and artificial 
intelligence (AI). NIST also directly engaged in standards-
setting bodies, including the international standard bodies, 
and is often regarded as a leader in the global standards 
arena.
    International technical standards provide a consistent set 
of rules which enables global market competition, precludes 
trade barriers, and allows innovation to flourish. It's 
critical for--these global standards are workable for American 
businesses. And so the United States must continue to play an 
active role in international standards setting and work to 
counter undue foreign influence within standards development 
organizations (SDOs).
    As new technology innovations such as AI and quantum 
science evolve, the new technological standards will be needed. 
The United States must be an active participant in shaping the 
standards and specifications that will guide the global 
development of these groundbreaking innovations. And if we do 
not, other countries will be there to fill the vacuum, and that 
will hurt American competitiveness in these industries of the 
future.
    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) recently released a 
national strategy for technical standards. They have announced 
that they want to be the nation's--the Nation that sets the 
global standards for the next generation of technology by 2035. 
We cannot allow China to dominate the international standards 
for technology of tomorrow. That is why a bipartisan NIST for 
the Future Act this Committee passed will authorize NIST's role 
in supporting U.S. leadership and international standard 
development. We will ensure that international standards are 
created in a transparent and democratic manner, and we won't 
allow the CCP to put their thumb on the scale and dominate 
these global standards.
    The NIST for the Future Act was one of the components of 
our bipartisan effort to double down on our investment in basic 
research and science competitiveness. Despite the strong 
bipartisan support of these efforts, competitiveness 
legislation is currently stalled because Democratic leadership 
in the House and Senate has piled on partisan provisions and 
dragged their feet on the conferencing of this legislation. I 
hope they take action soon so we can move forward on this 
important legislation.
    In the meantime, I'm excited for today's hearing, which 
will provide insights in how we can work together to increase 
U.S. companies' participation in setting of international 
standards. I'm looking forward to hearing how NIST can drive 
U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Thank you, Madam Chair, 
and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Feenstra follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. It is wonderful to be with 
you here in person for this Subcommittee's first hybrid 
hearing. Also, thank you to our witnesses for joining us today 
to share your expert testimony on how the U.S. can strengthen 
its leadership in technical standards.
    When we consider the policies that keep American businesses 
competitive, standards sometimes fly under the radar. But they 
are foundational to U.S. industry and manufacturing. They make 
it possible for cell phones to connect calls; for electronic 
devices to plug into outlets; and for laptops to connect to wi-
fi around the world. They serve as the building blocks for 
product development and help ensure functionality, 
interactivity, and safety. And that, in turn, helps keep 
America efficient and competitive.
    Unlike most countries that have a top-down, government-led 
approach, the United States has a bottom-up, industry-led 
approach to standards-setting. We employ a voluntary system in 
which both standards development and implementation are driven 
by stakeholder needs. This market-driven approach enables 
competition, ensures transparency, and takes advantage of 
building consensus to drive us to the best possible outcomes.
    Through the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), the government supports this industry-led work. NIST is 
a trusted, unbiased partner to industry and provides technical 
assistance through reference materials, data, and 
instrumentation, which often directly inform voluntary 
standards.
    The NIST Director is designated by Congress to be the 
President's principal adviser on standards policy as it relates 
to the Nation's technological and innovation competitiveness. 
NIST also helps us coordinate processes and policies between 
multiple government agencies to improve efficiency.
    NIST chairs the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy, 
which is currently examining and coordinating federal agencies' 
standards policies for advanced communications and artificial 
intelligence. NIST is also directly engaged in standards-
setting bodies, including in international standards bodies, 
and is often regarded as a leader in the global standards 
arena.
    International technical standards provide a consistent set 
of rules which enables global market competition, precludes 
trade barriers, and allows innovation to flourish. It's 
critical that these global standards are workable for American 
businesses. And so, the United States must continue to play an 
active role in international standards-setting and work to 
counter undue foreign influence within standards development 
organizations.
    As new technology innovations such as AI and quantum 
sciences evolve, new technical standards will be needed. The 
U.S. must be an active participant in shaping the standards and 
specifications that will guide the global deployment of these 
groundbreaking innovations. If we do not, other countries will 
be there to fill the vacuum, and that will hurt American 
competitiveness in these industries of the future.
    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) recently released a 
national strategy for technical standards. They have announced 
that they want to be the nation that sets the global standards 
for next-generation technologies by 2035. We cannot allow China 
to dominate the international standards for the technologies of 
tomorrow.
    That's why the bipartisan NIST for the Future Act this 
Committee passed will prioritize NIST's role in supporting U.S. 
leadership in international standards development. We will 
ensure that international standards are created in a 
transparent and democratic manner, and we won't allow the CCP 
to put their thumb on the scale and dominate global standards.
    The NIST for the Future Act was one component of our 
bipartisan effort to double down on our investment in basic 
research and scientific competitiveness. Despite the strong 
bipartisan support for these efforts, competitiveness 
legislation is currently stalled because Democratic leadership 
in the House and Senate has piled on partisan provisions and 
dragged their feet on conferencing the legislation. I hope they 
take action soon so we can move forward on this important 
legislation.
    In the meantime, I'm excited for today's hearing, which 
will provide insights into how we can work together to increase 
U.S. companies' participation in the setting of international 
standards.
    I'm looking forward to hearing how NIST can help drive U.S. 
innovation and competitiveness. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.

    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Feenstra, 
for holding this morning's hearing on U.S. leadership in 
technical standards. I want to welcome and thank the expert 
witnesses for their testimony.
    The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has long 
championed the U.S. approach to standard setting based on open, 
voluntary, industry-led, and consensus-based processes. In this 
system, the government plays a supportive role by funding 
research and development, providing technical inputs, 
identifying gaps, and adopting standards wherever possible. 
While agencies across our government have roles to play, the 
single most important agency for standards is the aptly named 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As the 
Committee in the
    U.S. House of Representatives with sole jurisdiction over 
NIST, we similarly have a unique and important role in 
advancing good standards policy for U.S. competitiveness. And 
we have always taken care to consult widely with standards 
development organizations, industry, and NIST when crafting 
legislation that would affect standards. That wide consultation 
is reflected in today's excellent panel.
    Because of the strength of the U.S. science and technology 
enterprise, the vibrant domestic standards development 
ecosystem, and the leadership of NIST, U.S. stakeholders have 
been dominant in international standards bodies for the last 
century. However, the global landscape of competition in 
science and technology is changing, and U.S. leadership no 
longer a given. We should be as concerned about losing our 
leadership in standards as we are about losing our leadership 
in research and development. We must also be prepared to play 
effective defense against any unfair practices by other nations 
in international standards bodies.
    I appreciate that other committees across Congress have 
been waking up to the critical importance of standards to our 
nation's competitiveness, and I welcome their interest. 
However, I would caution that the issues surrounding standards 
are complex, and sustained attention to those issues is 
critical to understanding how standards work and what policies 
might be required. There may not be simple answers to the 
challenges we face in international standards development. 
Moreover, we must be careful not to offer solutions in search 
of problems. Turning the American standards system into 
something closer to that of our adversaries will not ensure
    U.S. competitiveness-it will undermine it. Instead, we 
should look to further strengthen a system that has served us 
very well for 100 years. That starts with properly resourcing 
NIST to do its job, but I know that our witnesses have many 
other good ideas to share with us today.
    I look forward to hearing our witnesses' insights on how we 
can maintain U.S. competitiveness in international standard 
setting without compromising the Nation's open, consensus-based 
approach. I also look forward to continuing the bipartisan work 
of this Committee to advance bold and thoughtful policies to 
address these challenges.

    Chairwoman Stevens. Well, at this time, we want to 
introduce our witnesses. We're very spoiled by those who are 
coming before the Committee today. Our first witness is Dr. 
James Olthoff. Dr. Olthoff is currently the acting Director of 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We are 
looking forward to him potentially being confirmed. In this 
role, he provides high-level oversight and direction for NIST. 
Prior to taking on this role, Dr. Olthoff was the Associate 
Director for the Laboratory Programs. Previously, Dr. Olthoff 
served as the Director of the Physical Measurement Laboratory 
where he was responsible for the maintenance, development, and 
dissemination of the U.S. national measurement standard system.
    Our next witness is Ms. Mary Saunders. Ms. Saunders is the 
Vice President of Government Relations and Public Policy at the 
American National Standards Institute, ANSI. In this role, she 
serves as ANSI spokesperson and liaison to Federal, State, and 
local government agencies and to Congress. Prior to joining 
ANSI, Ms. Saunders was the Associate Director for Management 
Resources for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and served as the Vice Chair on the ANSI Board of 
Directors.
    Our third witness is Dr. Alissa Cooper. Dr. Cooper is the 
Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for Technology 
Policy and a Fellow at Cisco Systems. She leads and supports 
the company's technology policy work on artificial 
intelligence, broadband, technical standards, digital 
sovereignty, and other issues. She previously served as the 
Vice President for Technology Standards at Cisco and in a 
variety of leadership roles in the Internet Engineering Task 
Force, including serving as the Task Force Chair from 2017 to 
2021.
    Our next witness is Mr. Andrew Updegrove. Mr. Updegrove is 
a founding partner of Gesmer Updegrove, LLP, a Boston-based 
technology law firm. Since 1988, he has represented and in most 
cases helped structure more than 200 worldwide standards-
setting open-source research and development (R&D) promotional 
and advocacy consortia. Since 2004, he has served as the sole 
representative of the consortium community on working groups 
updating the United States' Standards Strategy maintained by 
ANSI and has served multiple terms on the Board of Directors of 
ANSI.
    So as our witnesses should know, you all have 5 minutes for 
your spoken testimony, and your written testimony will be 
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed 
your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each 
Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We expect to 
do a second round of questions today.
    With that, we will start with Dr. Olthoff.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES K. OLTHOFF,

              ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE

               OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

    Dr. Olthoff. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Stevens, 
Ranking Member Feenstra, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 
Dr. James Olthoff performing the nonexclusive functions and 
duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 
Technology and the Director of the Department of Commerce's 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, or as has been 
known, NIST. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 
strengthening U.S. leadership in standards.
    In the United States our voluntary consensus standards 
system is bottom-up, industry-driven, and sector-focused. 
Unlike other countries that are government-directed, the 
Federal Government does not control nor direct the standards 
system in the United States.
    Standards are critical to trade. Approximately 93 percent 
of global trade is affected by standards that impact trillions 
of dollars in trade. Emergence of new technologies such as 
advanced communications with 5G and beyond, additive 
manufacturing, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and 
quantum information science, these are very exciting times in 
the standards world. International standards play a critical 
role in the innovation and commercialization of these 
technologies. And the United States has historically been a 
leader in international standards development.
    America depends on standards every day. For example, as has 
been noted, as witnesses today are remote, participation in 
this hearing is made possible by standards for computers, 
networking, devices, the internet, video, and sound. Standards 
also help to ensure our health and safety from defining the 
shape and color of roadway signs to determining safe levels of 
exposure to radiation when getting an x-ray or mammogram to 
using a credit card globally. Standards underpin our daily 
interactions.
    Widespread reliance on standards also creates tremendous 
market opportunities in an increasingly global economy. 
Ignoring standards can have severe consequences for industry, 
which explains the significant investments made by countries 
such as China to increase participation in their international 
standards activities. Increasingly, developing countries see 
international standards as a powerful tool for competitiveness 
and for deploying strategies and tactics to play greater roles 
in international standardization.
    But it is not really about the numbers. It's about 
participation and impact. U.S. competitiveness in technology 
requires leadership by U.S. industry and standardization. 
However, U.S. industry is faced with very tough choices 
regarding the time and resource investments and standards 
activities, the benefits of which may not be evident in the 
short term.
    NIST plays a critical role in standards processes as the 
Nation's measurement laboratory and has a unique role relating 
to standards in the Federal enterprise. Our coordination 
function has a track record of technical excellence and 
objectivity, which has been supported by NIST's world-class 
scientists and engineers since the institute was established in 
1901. Strong ties to industry and the standards development 
community have enabled NIST to take on critical standards-
related challenges and deliver timely and effective solutions.
    NIST directly supports standards development by the 
participation of nearly 570 NIST technical staff and over 300 
standards organizations on more than 3,000 different standards 
activities in support of domestic and international priorities. 
Also, over the last 12 years, NIST has held 121 standards-
related training events for more than 7,700 Federal attendees. 
NIST engagement also provides the ability to learn firsthand 
about industries' measurement, standards, and research needs, 
which provides valuable input to our--to the prioritization of 
our programs.
    In addition, NIST supports U.S. industry and government 
agencies in their efforts to address technical barriers to 
trade by informing U.S. stakeholders of potential issues 
related to technical barriers to trade and helping stakeholders 
address these barriers. NIST engages directly with trading 
partners such as the E.U., Japan, India, and Brazil, among 
others. These exchanges enable NIST to gather firsthand 
information about standards that can impact American companies 
exporting to those countries.
    Continued dialog with our international partners has 
generated a significant level of trust, which has resulted in 
NIST work products being used in these countries. One example 
is NIST Cybersecurity Framework, which has been translated into 
eight languages, referenced by seven countries, and has become 
the basis for an international standard. NIST global leadership 
in measurement standards provides NIST with the platform to 
influence the future of technology innovation around the world, 
strengthening U.S. competitiveness, safety, and security.
    In closing, while there are challenges confronting U.S. 
engagement, NIST is actively working with our private sector 
partners to address these challenging--challenges using a range 
of tools, and we are leveraging opportunities to help our 
industries maintain their leadership roles. I will be glad to 
answer any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Olthoff follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
        
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great. We'll now move to Ms. Saunders.

        TESTIMONY OF MS. MARY SAUNDERS, VICE PRESIDENT,

            GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY,

          AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)

    Ms. Saunders. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Stevens 
and Ranking Member Feenstra and Subcommittee Members. I am Mary 
Saunders, the Vice President of Government Relations and Public 
Policy at the American National Standards Institute. ANSI has 
coordinated the U.S. private-sector-led standardization system 
for more than 100 years.
    Standards are a building block for U.S. innovation, 
competitiveness, security, and quality of life. This fact has 
been formally recognized in both U.S. law and policy and in the 
United States' standards strategy. One of the great strengths 
of the U.S. system as compared to other countries is our 
public-private partnership. Neither government nor industry 
claims or exerts overall authority. By working cooperatively, 
we can most effectively respond to the strategic needs of the 
Nation.
    The U.S. system is based on the principles of openness, 
balance, consensus, and due process and embraces the 
participation of all directly and materially interested 
parties. The resulting standards are consistent with the 
principles of the World Trade Organization Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade.
    Our market-driven, private-sector-led, and government-
supported system is critical to achieving the widely shared 
policy goals of expanded U.S. leadership and innovation on the 
global stage. A long-standing memorandum of understanding 
between ANSI and NIST recognizes the value of the public-
private partnership in our respective roles.
    With respect to representing the United States globally, 
ANSI is the official U.S. representative to the International 
Organization for Standardization, ISO, and via its U.S. 
national committee, the International Electrotechnical 
Commission, or IEC. In this capacity, ANSI works to ensure that 
all U.S. interests are considered in the formulation of U.S. 
positions in these international standards bodies.
    U.S. leadership in international standards forums is 
essential because it allows us to ensure the integrity of the 
process, assuring a level playing field, open participation and 
consensus, and standards that are globally relevant. The pace 
of change of critical and emerging technologies, including 
artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum information 
science, is ever-increasing. And the number of standards 
activities and venues has grown dramatically to keep pace. 
There are also a larger number of global players actively 
engaged in standards processes.
    As competition for technology-driven advantages 
intensifies, the need for globally accepted standards is 
greater than ever. An open, rules-based standards system that 
reflects changing global marketplace needs is key, and 
maintaining the integrity and impartiality of international 
standards development processes remains a priority.
    We've heard concerns expressed in various policy venues 
regarding China's ambitions for increased influence over 
international standards. While China has increased its 
participation in ISO and IEC, we do not see that as threatening 
to U.S. influence or contributing to dominance in those venues 
to date. In fact, ANSI and its members have encouraged China's 
participation in rules-based international organizations in 
lieu of developing their own standards that may not reflect the 
consensus of the global community.
    Success in international standardization is built on trust 
in the system and its values and its rules, and the United 
States has long enjoyed a positive reputation as a reliable 
partner and leader in the international standards development 
process. Recently, however, trust in the U.S. private-sector-
led standards process has begun to erode in some quarters, 
driven by the false perception that the system is somehow 
inadequate to the challenges of the current environment.
    Some proposals in the legislative and executive branches 
seeking to address the limitations of the private-sector-led 
approach have been perceived by some observers as the 
government putting its thumb on the scales. From ANSI's 
perspective, a long-term, proactive approach is required to 
ensure continued U.S. global leadership in standards 
development for critical and emerging technologies. This 
approach should encompass sustained investment in R&D, expanded 
coordination among government, industry, and academia, expanded 
collaborations among U.S. Government and like-minded partners, 
and a clear commitment to industry-led standard development 
processes.
    ANSI urges the U.S. Government to redouble its commitment 
to industry-led standards by supporting and advancing widely 
accepted principles for the development of international 
standards and continuing to incentivize U.S. stakeholders' 
participation in international standards. We also call for the 
expansion of public-private partnerships for standards-related 
education and training. And finally, we urge a consistent 
approach to the treatment of standards in government-to-
government dialogs and coordination with the private sector on 
messaging.
    ANSI stands ready to assist this Subcommittee and its 
parent Committee in further deliberations on the U.S. 
standardization system and our public-private partnership. I 
would be happy to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   
    
    Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you so much. And with that, we'll 
move to Dr. Cooper.

                TESTIMONY OF DR. ALISSA COOPER,

          VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,

              TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND CISCO FELLOW,

                       CISCO SYSTEMS INC.

    Dr. Cooper. Thank you. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member 
Feenstra, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Alissa Cooper, and I 
am Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for Technology 
Policy and a Fellow at Cisco Systems. Cisco is a Fortune 100 
company that is the worldwide leader in technology that powers 
the internet. I have been a participant in global technology 
standards development since 2008. As the Chairwoman noted, for 
4 years I served as Chair of the Internet Engineering Task 
Force, the world's premier internet standards organization. In 
2020, I established Cisco's Global Technology Standards Team, 
which coordinates and supports Cisco's participation in more 
than 120 standards development organizations, or SDOs, across 
the tech sector. I currently serve as the Chair of the 
Standards Policy Committee of the Information Technology 
Industry Council.
    It has been the official policy of the U.S. Government 
since the 1990's to support voluntary, consensus-based 
standards driven by private sector organizations and not by 
governmental mandate. This policy set the stage for hundreds of 
open membership SDOs and consortia to be incorporated in the 
United States and around the world, producing tens of thousands 
of standards that the $2 trillion U.S. tech sector and the 
global economy now rely on.
    The combination of open participation, industry leadership, 
and consensus that characterizes the U.S.-backed system 
delivers unique advantages. First, the system promotes bottom-
up innovation with good ideas flowing in from any interested 
party. Second, it positions the very actors driving innovation 
in the market to funnel their advances into the standardization 
process. Third, it leverages rules-based governance and 
consensus to protect against the dominance of any single actor. 
And finally, the system's worldwide nature creates advantages 
for U.S.-based multinational companies by opening global 
markets to standards-compliant technologies. Based on its 
immense success, this system should continue to be promoted and 
defended everywhere.
    However, in the recent years, there have been a number of 
attempts to use government policy to exclude certain entities 
from participating in international standardization. While 
these moves may be based on legitimate concerns about the 
influence of Chinese or other entities on technological 
innovation, they have the unintended consequences of 
undermining the successful industry-led standardization system, 
fragmenting standard development into silos, spurring the 
creation of competing foreign SDOs, and diminishing the 
influence of U.S. companies in global organizations.
    I have witnessed these consequences firsthand as a 
standards leader and participant. For example, the industry has 
experienced these effects as a result of actions taken in 
recent years by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry 
and Security, or BIS, to extend U.S. export control 
restrictions to standards development activities. And we see 
the potential for further damage in recent proposals from the 
European Commission that aimed to reduce the role of industry 
in standards-related decisionmaking. Shutting out selected 
participants from the system undercuts much of the value it 
delivers to U.S. industry.
    Instead of seeking to exclude entities from participating, 
policymakers should be working to strengthen U.S. participation 
and the system itself. There are numerous ways the U.S. 
Government can do this. I will make five suggestions.
    No. 1, support the role of NIST as coordinator of Federal 
Government standards activity and as a focal point for 
engagement with the private sector. It may be worth exploring 
ways to enhance information-sharing between the public and 
private sectors concerning key technical areas of mutual 
interest.
    No. 2, incorporate standardization requirements into public 
funding programs for research and development. Academic 
researchers bring tremendous value to the standards process. 
Public funding can be used to increase the impact of research 
on standardization.
    No. 3, leverage strategic multilateral engagements, 
including the G7, the U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council, 
or TTC, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialog to reinforce the 
value of open, market-driven, global standards.
    No. 4, provide consistent support for technical experts in 
government to participate in standards development. Agency 
staff need sustain resources to build the reputation and 
influence they need to reflect our Nation's priorities and 
interests in standards.
    And No. 5, as noted earlier, a carefully crafted BIS rule 
change is needed to authorize U.S. participation in standards 
development activities in the presence of entities on the 
entity list. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas 
with you.
    The reality is that the U.S. industry holds an exceedingly 
strong position in global standards development. The U.S. tech 
sector is the envy of most nations around the world, and simple 
statistics about the number of standards participants or 
leadership positions per country neither paint an accurate 
picture of standards development, nor provide the proper 
grounding to guide U.S. strategy. Now is a critical moment for 
the U.S. Government to reassert its role as a global champion 
of private-sector-led standardization.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Cooper follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
        
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great. And with that, Mr. Updegrove.

               TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW UPDEGROVE,

                PARTNER, GESMER UPDEGROVE L.L.P

    Mr. Updegrove. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Feenstra, 
and Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on this important topic. My name is Andrew Updegrove, 
and I am a partner in the Boston law firm of Gesmer Updegrove. 
The opinions I will express today are mine alone and are 
informed by my experience over the last 34 years representing 
more than 150 standards organizations. I previously provided 
standards-related testimony before bodies of Congress, State 
legislatures, and European Commission and in hearings convened 
by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.
    Let me start with the good news, which is that America 
benefits greatly from a global standards development system in 
which U.S. stakeholders have long wielded disproportionate 
influence. The value created by both traditional standards 
organizations and modern consortia--I'll refer to them 
collectively as SSOs--is remarkable. Every year, they create 
thousands of new standards that are voluntarily adopted 
throughout the world, all without taxpayer expense. Many of 
these same standards are ultimately referenced into law, 
sparing agencies the effort of drafting regulations to similar 
effects.
    While the governance structures of SSOs vary, they all have 
one thing in common. They are trust-based and consensus-driven. 
SSOs work because shareholders have more to gain than to lose 
by participating. In short, SSOs are based on the same types of 
democratic values that make our own governmental system work. 
We should certainly strive to ensure that no rival sets out to 
undermine those values. However, in doing so, we ourselves must 
not accidentally undermine the SSO processes that are essential 
to their success.
    Unfortunately, several well-meaning actions in recent years 
have had just such unintended consequences. One example 
involves the addition of Huawei to the entity list. Of course, 
the entity list plays a vital role in preventing essential U.S. 
technology from falling into the wrong hands, but the related 
rules lack a clear and practical exemption for standards 
development. Many might ask why we shouldn't try to prevent 
Huawei from participating in SSOs. I'd be happy to address that 
in response to your questions, but suffice it to say that U.S. 
industry is united in the belief that a workable standards 
development exemption is critically important.
    For current purposes, the takeaway is that adding Huawei to 
the entity list without a workable exemption would cause great 
disruption to hundreds of SSOs as they scramble with 
frustration to understand what was required of them and then 
restructure. Worse, some SSOs claim that they complied with 
entity list rules, but American companies disagreed. The result 
was a policy paradox. Huawei was free to participate in those 
SSOs, while U.S. companies decided they could not.
    Subsequent guidance was given, but most USOs and U.S. 
companies found that guidance too vague to be helpful. U.S. 
companies continue to ask for a clear rule while non-U.S. 
members bridle at the unilateral imposition of rules on global 
SSOs. Some SSOs have even moved to Europe as a result.
    If we want to ensure that America leads in standards 
development, we need to make sure that American leadership is 
respected and in the room. Right now, recent American actions 
are resented, and American leaders are sometimes excluding 
themselves. But this is just an example. We need better ongoing 
public-private communication so that we can work together to be 
sure that new government actions produce only anticipated 
favorable effects both at home and abroad. This makes today's 
hearing particularly welcome.
    A second lesson is that we need to respect the independence 
of global SSOs. Recently, laws have been proposed that would 
require SSOs to demonstrate democratic values in their 
governance. However well-intentioned--and they are--such laws, 
if enacted, would represent an existential threat to global 
standards development. If the United States can impose its own 
national mandates on SSOs, why not the European Union or China 
or the Russian Federation? The best defense for American 
interests is therefore to defend the independence of SSOs 
rather than mandate changes that may lead to the degradation or 
even collapse of the global standards development 
infrastructure.
    What else can Congress do to enhance American leadership 
and influence on SSOs? Here are some suggestions. One, advocate 
rather than mandate. If a trade competitor seeks to manipulate 
an SSO vital to the national interest, we should rally American 
and allied members of that SSO to thwart that effort.
    Two, better understand how SSOs operate and regulate 
accordingly. Relevant agencies should do more to reach out to 
SSO participants before acting in order to avoid rules with 
adverse impacts on SSOs and interests and act quickly to 
ameliorate such impacts if they occur.
    Three, recognize the vital role of consortia and open-
source software foundations. To date, government has focused 
primarily on traditional SSOs even as consortia and open-source 
projects have become ever more vital to the national interest.
    Four, take greater advantage of NIST and ANSI. NIST and 
ANSI have worked together closely for decades. The ability of 
these organizations to act as a bridge between government and 
the private sector, as well as abroad, has been underutilized.
    Fifth and last, convene a private-sector standards advisory 
council. Hearings such as today's are essential but 
establishing an on-call resource would provide faster and more 
authoritative guidance to lawmakers and regulators.
    With that, I'd like to thank you again for the privilege of 
speaking to you today. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Updegrove follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you so much again to our 
witnesses. And just to make a small correction for the record, 
on July 16th President Biden nominated Laurie Locascio for the 
role of NIST Director. She is waiting on confirmation. She is a 
colleague of our witness here today, who we are excited to 
have, Dr. Olthoff, and thank you so much for your contributions 
to today's hearing and obviously to the agency at which you 
serve.
    So with that, we're going to move to the first round of 
questions. Members are going to have 5 minutes for questioning. 
And the Chair is going to recognize herself for 5 minutes.
    So there's a growing interest, as we all know in Congress, 
regarding international standards-setting processes as they 
relate to U.S. competitiveness. There's a lot of legislation 
coming forward between the House and the Senate, and yet again, 
time and time again, we get good legislation and everyone 
starts looking at the goodies in the Science Committee and what 
we are working on here.
    So one proposal in the Senate, the U.S. Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act, would put the State Department, OK, in 
charge of coordinating U.S. engagement in international ICT 
(information and communications technology) standards. Folks, 
you know, we just got to look at this because, you know, why 
would we put the NTIA (National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration) in the lead?
    So, Dr. Olthoff, you discussed this in your testimony, but 
it'd be worth repeating here. What is NIST's role for 
coordinating Federal standards policies and Federal engagement 
and international standards bodies more specifically? And how 
does your role differ from that of the State Department?
    Dr. Olthoff. Thank you. Well, I think one of the important 
points to recognize is that precision measurements often form 
the basis for the most important and best international 
technical standards. And so NIST is the leading national 
measurement institute of the world, and so the technical 
program that we bring to bear in order to provide the technical 
guidance necessary to advance U.S. interests in the 
international standards preparation is absolutely critical to 
those activities.
    In a broader sense, NIST plays the role of coordinating 
across the Federal agencies to determine which agencies need to 
be engaged in different processes. We watch the standards 
process. We are aware of the standards that are being proposed 
by different countries, and, when appropriate, we determine 
which of those need to be addressed by various Federal 
agencies.
    Chairwoman Stevens. So, Dr. Olthoff----
    Dr. Olthoff. Yes, go ahead.
    Chairwoman Stevens [continuing]. How much are you 
coordinating with the State Department?
    Dr. Olthoff. Oh, we coordinate very closely with the State 
Department. We provide technical guidance to them on every 
level, and we coordinate with them as----
    Chairwoman Stevens. So they're referring to you?
    Dr. Olthoff. Yes, absolutely with respect to----
    Chairwoman Stevens. They come to you to----
    Dr. Olthoff. With respect to the technical aspects of it, 
yes, absolutely.
    Chairwoman Stevens. OK. Because I'm just wondering about 
this note about having the State Department in charge of 
coordinating the U.S. engagement in international ICT 
standards. Would that be a different set of protocol than is 
currently being pursued, or does that follow processes that are 
currently in place?
    Dr. Olthoff. I think that it would be important to 
recognize that a technical basis in order to be able to 
understand and advise on the importance of different standards 
activities to the Federal Government would be essential in 
order to do the coordination properly.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Right, because we have another piece of 
legislation, as I was referencing, that would put NTIA in the 
lead. So, you know, when we have the preeminent standards 
agency, quote, Member of the Science Committee, Congressman Ed 
Perlmutter, who's already coordinating this, I think the 
question is how successful would we be if we transition some of 
that--those coordinating activities away from NIST? And I 
think--let's just take this to the full panel. Do you have any 
concerns about the current processes for Federal coordination 
of standards policies and engagement? And what recommendations 
if anything do you have for further strengthening those 
processes? And, Dr. Olthoff, if you want to continue here, that 
would be great.
    Dr. Olthoff. So I believe that obviously the coordination 
between State Department, NTIA, NIST, all of those are done 
extremely well and would do well to continue in the future.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great. That's definitely something to 
be proud of. Anyone else want to chime in on concerns about the 
current processes for Federal coordination of standards 
policies and engagement?
    Ms. Saunders. So this is Mary Saunders if I could just add 
in support of Jim's statement, I strongly feel that 
coordination is working well. NIST is in a unique position 
because of the breadth of technology that the Institute covers 
and the breadth of connections across the standards community. 
I think certainly that role should be heightened and recognized 
further across the entire Federal space, but it's working well 
and it's a valuable coordination role.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Dr. Cooper, do you have any thoughts on 
this?
    Dr. Cooper. I fully agree with Ms. Saunders and acting 
Director Olthoff. We really support NIST in the coordinator 
role. We think they do a great job. And it's very important, as 
Director Olthoff said, to have those with the deepest technical 
expertise and understanding of the standards landscape to be 
performing that coordinating function, and there's no other 
agency in the Federal Government that has that outside NIST, so 
I fully support continuing with the current model of 
coordination.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Mr. Updegrove?
    Mr. Updegrove. I certainly concur. The global standards 
infrastructure is sort of an alternative government system. And 
like most government systems, there's a lot of ins and outs. 
There's a lot of delicacy and nuance, and NIST has decades of 
experience in navigating that landscape. It's not an easy 
expertise to pick up. The State Department certainly has its 
hands full, and it's lucky to have a resource like NIST to rely 
on with confidence.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. So for all of you tuning in, our 
witnesses have all said that they do not have any concerns 
about our current processes for the Federal coordination of 
standards policy vis-a-vis NIST and the system we have right 
now.
    And with that, the Chair will yield back and yield to her 
colleague, Ranking Member Feenstra, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chair Stevens.
    Dr. Olthoff, in 2018 GAO (Government Accountability Office) 
conducted a review of NIST standard development activities and 
made several recommendations to NIST to help strengthen its 
standards-support activities. From my review, it looks like one 
recommendation remains open. Does NIST plan to implement GAO's 
recommendation to ensure the Associate Director completes 
periodic reviews of NIST standards development activities?
    Dr. Olthoff. Yes, I'm happy to report that all of the 
requirements and recommendations from the GAO report have been 
acted upon. A new committee of OU (Organizational Units) 
Directors has been established that meets regularly with 
respect to the coverage of NIST participation and standards 
activities, and they report out to the NIST Associate Directors 
and also review the needs across the community and across the 
industry and make sure that our efforts are directed to support 
the most urgent and highest priority needs across the country.
    Mr. Feenstra. Perfect. So just looking at that, so NIST, if 
you're sort of thinking strategically about its standard 
development activities, particularly as it relates to 
international standards, can you just quickly note, I mean, 
what are your strategic thoughts going down this path?
    Dr. Olthoff. Certainly. So certainly our deep and broad 
interactions with industry and with standards development 
organizations and the rest of the Federal Government influences 
us in terms of reviewing what the priorities are for the United 
States and where the most important things are for us to be 
focusing on. I will say that of late most of--or much of our 
focus has been to increase our involvement in the areas of 
critical emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, 
bioengineering, quantum computing, advanced communications, so 
we are working together with our technical staff to work in 
these areas and with the relevant industries. We convene 
multiple workshops and other opportunities for small- and 
medium-size businesses to engage so that we can ensure that 
there's broad participation across the United States industry 
sector.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, that's great to hear. I really applaud 
you for that. Thank you.
    I got another question though for you, Dr. Olthoff. We know 
that the China Communist Party, CCP, is making significant 
investments in the attempt to assume leadership roles in 
different international standard organizations. In 2021, the 
Science Committee worked with Congressman Schweikert's office 
on legislation to direct NIST to commission a study on China's 
participation in international standardization. What is the 
status of this study, and when do you expect it to be completed 
and available to the public?
    Dr. Olthoff. Yes, so late last year, NIST issued a request 
for information for concerned parties to provide input into 
this study. We received 40 responses, which were posted last 
November. The third-party study that is being sponsored by NIST 
is expected to produce its report by January 1st, 2023.
    Mr. Feenstra. Perfect. This heightened engagement of the 
CCP in international standards development to me is quite 
concerning. I think it's probably concerning to many of my 
colleagues and especially to business and industry. In your 
opinion, what can we do to counter undue foreign influence of 
the international standards development?
    Dr. Olthoff. Consistent with what my fellow witnesses have 
said, I think first and foremost we need to support the current 
process of industry-driven and open participation in standards 
activities. This strong system has already provided a level 
playing field in which the United States has led for many, many 
years.
    Additionally, supporting the U.S. R&D environment, the best 
technologies often drive the best standards, and continuing to 
do so would ensure U.S. leadership going forward.
    Mr. Feenstra. That's great. I agree with you, exactly 
right.
    Ms. Saunders, how do we go about developing standards for 
evolving and emerging technologies like quantum and AI that are 
not fully developed yet? Is there ever concern about developing 
standards too prematurely or too late? I mean, there's this 
fine line that we're sort of walking right now in these areas. 
What is your thoughts on that?
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you very much, great question. And yes, 
there is an inherent concern with early stage technologies and 
when is the best time to begin the development of standards, 
which are--provide a basis for greater commercialization and 
broader use of those technologies.
    So I think an important contributor--and NIST is very 
active in this area--is something called pre-standardization 
research. Jim--Dr. Olthoff mentioned it in his testimony and in 
response. It has to do with doing underpinning measurement and 
related research to provide support for robust technical 
standards. That's important, and the Federal Government can 
play a role here in filling gaps in early stage technologies.
    And then certainly we see in early stage standards 
development such as going on in ISO, JTC 1 (JointTechnical 
Committee 1), and quantum and artificial intelligence you'll 
see broader engagement at the outset from university research 
and Federal Government staff and perhaps industry coming in a 
little later as the technology matures to some extent. But I 
think the flexibility in terms of the level and types of 
participants and types of stakeholders that the U.S. system 
provides is very important for these emerging technologies.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Ms. Saunders. Thank you for those 
comments. With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. OK. And with that, the Committee is 
going to recognize Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible here?
    Chairwoman Stevens. You are, audible and visible.
    Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and 
Ranking Member Feenstra, and our witnesses for joining us here 
today.
    You know, this--standards have been an interest of mine for 
a long time. You know, way back in the 1980's when our company 
first started selling a significant fraction of what we 
manufactured into the markets in Europe and East Asia, I was 
flabbergasted at the number of differing standards we had to 
cope with, just electrical and fire safety alone, and many 
other areas. And there's no doubt that the E.U. and the free 
world have benefited enormously from standardizing those 
requirements across national boundaries. And, as a physicist, I 
still have not given up on that longstanding dream of having 
the United States finally adopt the mother of all international 
industry standards, the metric system.
    But what I'd like to talk about today is the work that NIST 
is doing on digital identity. This is very important in the 
standards-setting arena. It's fundamental to the development of 
these new technologies. So I've been interested in a long time 
for this. Partly it's with my hat on in the financial services 
industry where we're going to have to deal with, you know, 
finally getting reasonable regulation into crypto and similar 
areas.
    And so getting a high-quality, secure digital identity into 
the hands of Americans who want one will pay for itself 
hundreds of times over in identity fraud prevention, enabling 
Fintech and regulating cryptocurrencies and preventing cyber 
attacks. My legislation, H.R. 4259, the Strengthening Digital 
Identity Act, addresses the role that NIST can play in 
developing technical standards for the use of digital identity.
    So, Dr. Olthoff, could you speak about NIST's ongoing work 
in this field and how it views its current work and where it's 
going and its responsibility for developing safe and reliable 
standards for secure digital ID?
    Dr. Olthoff. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. So 
NIST continues to play a role in this, has played a role in 
this area for quite some time. NIST Digital Identity Guidance 
Special Publication 800-63 provides foundational technical 
requirements and risk management processes for managing digital 
identity. So these guidelines actually details a suite of 
identity verification and authentication processes and controls 
that allows agencies and service providers to tailor solutions 
to their mission needs. Currently, NIST is in the process of 
updating this guidance and is actively working with the public 
and private stakeholders to ensure that it reflects current 
technology in the landscape, and we're looking for input from a 
broad range of stakeholders for their input.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you. And can you speak or other of 
our witnesses speak about how this is going internationally? 
Because obviously for things like cryptocurrency you need--you 
know, secure digital ID has to work there on an international 
basis, as well as a number, just preventing money laundering, 
things like this. None of those things work unless you have a 
way of asserting your digital identity in a secure manner 
internationally. And so can you just a little bit about working 
with ISO and other places not only for the standards--you know, 
for the--you know, for the sort of software part of it but also 
for the standards of what happens inside a modern cell phone, 
which is really, you know, going to be the crucial element 
where these standards will have to live
    Mr. Updegrove. This is Andy Updegrove. I'd be happy to 
field that. It's certainly a very important area. One of the 
ways in which consortia have been particularly good for the 
American interest is that if you take a new work item to one of 
the established standards organizations, it's just another 
item. And everyone everywhere in the world has an opportunity 
to be part of that working group. When you start a consortium, 
you can focus all of your efforts on that single item. You can 
accelerate the pace, you can bring everyone into the room 
that's needed, you can have certification programs, compliance 
testing, branding, conferences, and in other ways promote it 
very quickly into the marketplace.
    Importantly, those efforts have almost invariably been led 
by American companies, who then select the partners that they 
bring into that effort. The result is that the technology of 
American companies predominates in those standards and then 
lives on for multiple years as that standard proliferates into 
the marketplace.
    So one of the things that I think government doesn't always 
appreciate is the value of these nimble, agile, industry-based 
efforts to do important work on demand to pursue the national 
interest and, frankly, giving the American companies a 
disproportionate influence in that effort.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you. And, you know, we sort of saw 
this in the way that Apple and Android are rolling out 
essentially implementations of the NIST standard in their 
latest products, but it would be nice if there was more 
transparency on things like whether or not it will be allowable 
to have digital backdoors, as may be mandated by some 
countries.
    Anyway, my time for this round is up, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Ever interesting. And with that, we'll 
turn to Dr. Baird for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate you and 
the Ranking Member holding this session. And you know I always 
appreciate--I have a strong science background, so I always 
appreciate the kind of witnesses that we have in this Science, 
and Space, and Technology Committee. And so I think that's very 
important to keeping us in leadership in the United States, and 
this is--this questioning today is certainly relevant to 
maintaining that situation. So--but my question is going to go 
to everyone.
    You know, the Chinese Communist Party is the--has their 
standards for 2035 strategy, and even our allies in the 
European Union recently announced a new standardization 
strategy to strengthen their global competitiveness. So my 
first question is, do you feel it would be beneficial for the 
United States to have such a national strategy? And if so, why 
or why not? So, Dr. Cooper, would you want to lead that off, 
start off?
    Dr. Cooper. Sure, thank you for the question. I think, you 
know, you'll be hard-pressed to find somebody who's going to 
argue against being more strategic, so having a standards 
strategy as a general matter is better than not having one. I 
think as a general matter as well, it's important for such a 
strategy to really focus in on how it can support what we've 
been discussing here thus far today, the extremely successful 
private-sector-led open and consensus-based standards system. 
So as the Federal Government starts to look into particular 
technology areas where it wants to stimulate increased U.S. 
participation in standards, looking at how Federal funds can be 
used to direct that work and to support the kind of innovation, 
R&D, and research that is needed to be successful in standards, 
it's critical to ensure that the strategy remains at a high 
level and that the industry and the standards experts are able 
to continue to make their own individual choices about where 
and when and how and which technologies specifically to 
standardize.
    I think now is an important moment for the United States to 
assert its own strategy in particular because it could be 
valuable as a contrast to what the European Union has proposed. 
They're really looking at taking much more of a government-
directed approach that diminishes the role of industry, and so 
I think it would be useful for the United States to have a 
strategy that can contrast with that and try to convince our 
allies to follow our approach instead of the approach that they 
are pursuing.
    And then the last thing I will say is that having industry 
input into such a strategy is absolutely critical. The people 
on the ground who are doing the standardization have the best 
knowledge of the system, and having input from them and guiding 
the strategy is essential.
    Mr. Baird. I really like the ground-up approach. I think 
that's very important. And then in the United States leadership 
in setting standards certainly makes it much less difficult for 
us to assert ourselves around the world.
    Ms. Saunders, do you have a comment in that area?
    Ms. Saunders. Yes, thank you very much. I just wanted to 
build on Dr. Cooper's comments. I mean, we've had at a very 
high--the United States has had a very high level with input 
from government, industry, organizations, and standards 
developers a U.S. standards--United States standards strategy 
for 20 years. Most recently updated--it's updated every 5 years 
and was most recently updated at the end of 2020. That strategy 
is high-level, 12 strategic initiatives, and then a range of 
tactical initiatives, which provide suggestions for the various 
stakeholders to take forward in their own context. And so there 
are suggestions for what the government might do in the context 
of a Federal national standards strategy.
    So I agree with Dr. Cooper that that would make a positive 
impact in--within the framework of the existing United States' 
standards strategy, which recognizes the value of the private-
sector-led system. And certainly a clear statement from the 
government regarding the government's interest in critical and 
emerging technologies and support for the robust private sector 
system and the underpinning rules that provide the basis for 
that system would be valuable in the context of the other 
strategies that we've seen emerging globally.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. And, you know, I would really 
like to have had the same question to my other two witnesses, 
but in the interest of time, my time has run out, so, Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. OK. Thank you, Dr. Baird. And with 
that, we're going to turn to Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Madam Chair Stevens and Ranking 
Member Feenstra and the witnesses, for being here today.
    The future of the U.S. economy and national security will 
be determined by our global leadership in the microelectronics 
industry. This is indeed influenced by many factors, but strong 
influence in international standards-setting and long-term 
strategic Federal engagement that emphasizes the importance of 
microelectronics are key to maintaining our competitive edge.
    So as home to the most innovative and productive companies 
in the world, the United States has participated in and led 
technical standards-setting for well over a century. And that 
said, countries like China are investing significantly in their 
innovation economy and are determined to strengthen their 
influence in setting international standards. While America 
remains the leader in international standards development, I 
believe we must sharpen our competitive edge with sustained 
investments in R&D like the House did recently with the passage 
of its America COMPETES Act or other countries may one day 
surpass us.
    So, Dr. Olthoff, how do programs like NIST on a Chip drive 
innovation that will influence international standards setting?
    Dr. Olthoff. So, yes, so as you've noted that standards are 
extraordinarily important for semiconductor electronics, and 
NIST research programs are extremely useful and relevant to 
driving those technologies and to providing technical input 
into the standards that are used in terms of those 
technologies. NIST on a Chip is a really excellent example of 
this. Our ability to probe the quantum world allows us to 
develop sensors that don't require calibration, and so these 
next-generation types of technologies can be used to advance 
various types of commercial products. And so this sort of 
technical leadership can help advise us and advise the world in 
terms of how to develop the new standard--levels of standards.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Olthoff. And--go ahead.
    Mr. Tonko. I'm sorry. And, Doctor, how is NIST approaching 
metrology as it relates to advanced semiconductors in this 
setting?
    Dr. Olthoff. Right. So we play an important role with 
industry and university partners to develop the advanced 
measurement science necessary to support these efforts, and 
then we work with industry to see that this--these technologies 
get put into the necessary documentary standards. So--and as 
you've noted, funding of the CHIPS Act could play a very 
important role in advancing these programs as we go forward to 
maintain U.S. leadership and competitiveness.
    Mr. Tonko. Great, thank you. In August 2019, NIST released 
the artificial intelligence standards strategy, which 
identified specific areas of focus for AI standards and the 
importance of involvement by U.S. Government agencies. So, Dr. 
Olthoff, does NIST have any plans to create a strategy for 
Federal engagement in developing technical standards and tools 
for microelectronics?
    Dr. Olthoff. Standards for microelectronics? I don't know 
that we have any specific plans to develop that sort of 
strategy, but it's something that we could certainly look into 
and consider.
    Mr. Tonko. And can you briefly touch on why it's important 
that we have strategies for engaging in the development of 
technical standards for critical technologies like 
semiconductors?
    Dr. Olthoff. Sure. Certainly, critical technologies and 
certainly emerging critical technologies, it becomes important 
for us to have strategies in terms of how to engage. More and 
more in this world these new critical and emerging 
technologies, the standards development processes are beginning 
earlier and earlier, and if we don't have a strategy to engage 
in them, there will be a vacuum that will be filled by somebody 
other than the United States. And so we take our technological 
advances and leadership in these areas and utilize that in 
order to provide us with the necessary groundwork to provide 
true and excellent leadership in these areas so that we can 
take them in a direction that makes sense and doesn't lead to 
places that we don't want them to go or that would be 
unnecessary.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And for all of our other panelists, 
beyond facilitating Federal coordination, is it beneficial to 
SDOs and industry actors for the Federal Government to lay out 
its priorities on standards for critical technologies like 
microelectronics?
    Mr. Updegrove. This is Andy Updegrove. If I could just note 
relative to your last question, one of the organizations that I 
mentioned that left the United States because of Huawei being 
added to the entity list and the surrounding disruption was the 
RISC-V foundation, which is the leading open chip design 
standards organization in the world. So that was a direct 
impact. And their stated reason was because their foreign 
members did not feel comfortable participating in an 
organization based in the United States, so a troubling 
precedent in your area of interest.
    Mr. Tonko. Anyone else?
    Ms. Saunders. Just very briefly, I mean, in answer to your 
question, Representative Tonko, yes, I do feel that it's 
helpful for the Federal Government to clearly articulate its 
priorities with respect to critical and emerging technologies 
and standards. And we have a couple of examples. Dr. Olthoff 
mentioned--he discussed artificial intelligence, but Department 
of Defense's work with ANSI for 5 years on additive 
manufacturing, a roadmap for critical standards in the additive 
manufacturing area and the Federal Aviation Administration on 
unmanned aerial vehicles, so we have examples where a Federal 
agency has come to ANSI and/or to NIST or both and sought to 
identify critical standards and gaps and address those gaps 
with the private sector. It's very important.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Well, Madam Chair, you've been most 
generous, and I've exceeded my time, so I do yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you. And with that, we're 
going to move to a second round of questions because we've been 
spoiled with good witnesses and a big topic.
    And my colleague Dr. Foster focused on this, and I want to 
hone in on this for some continuing work that we want to do on 
this Committee, as well as the relevance of what we are 
discussing here today in the hearing, strengthening U.S. 
leadership in technical standards, strengthening U.S. 
leadership. We had the conversation here about work force and 
skills gaps and shortages and technical STEM- (science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics-) educated workers who 
we are so hungry for. A, you know, Wall Street Journal headline 
from the early 2010's citing a dogfight for technology talent 
in the United States of America, unions hiring through rigorous 
testing for their apprenticeship programs using complicated 
formulas.
    And where I'm going with this is it's not just work force. 
It's also innovation capabilities, right? It is construction of 
homes. It is producing of goods. And in the United States we're 
becoming increasingly isolated through our--potentially through 
sticking on the imperial system of measurement. And as we look 
to maybe the unlocking of channels for going metric--and I want 
to ask NIST about this, you know, Dr. Olthoff about this 
because some will cite that the metric system is superior and 
that it is not as complicated, that when you do conversions or 
units of measurement or you're working at home, you're able to 
do so more easily.
    And I just gave--I love the NIST website. I go on there 
frequently. There's a lot of treasures on there. But just last 
night in preparation for the hearing I was trying to 
understand, well, what is NIST looking at with our measurement 
system? And I couldn't really easily find anything. So I just 
wanted to ask you, Dr. Olthoff, do we--is NIST working on this 
at all? I mean, are you guys--how are you liaising or making 
recommendations or thinking about potentially embracing the 
metric system in the United States of America?
    Dr. Olthoff. Well, thank you for the question. So yes, NIST 
plays a very significant role in the development and 
maintenance of what we call the international system of units, 
which is indeed the metric system. I myself in fact am on the 
International Committee of Weights and Measures. That is the 18 
individuals nationally that oversee the international system of 
units to make sure that it is available and universally used 
across the world. And in fact the United States is a metric 
country in that we have signed the Treaty of the Metre, and all 
of our imperial units are defined in terms of the metric unit. 
So fundamentally, we do utilize at the most basic levels and--
we utilize the metric system.
    Universal use of the metric system by the general 
population is going to require some work by agencies other than 
NIST----
    Chairwoman Stevens. Right.
    Dr. Olthoff [continuing]. Including the possibility of 
metric-only labeling on products. So we support the metric 
system. We support agencies that are attempting--and industries 
that are attempting to use it. And in fact it is being used by 
many industries today in order to be able to participate on the 
international trade.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Well, we're proud of those agencies, 
and we're proud of your work.
    Dr. Cooper, do you have any thoughts about this, about 
having two systems of measurement and, quote, ``appalling 
errors,'' end quote, that can be led--or result from having two 
systems of measurement? How does Cisco feel?
    Dr. Cooper. So Cisco does not have a position on having the 
two systems of measurement or metric versus imperial. What I 
will say is that it's sort of a daily reminder of how important 
standards are, and this is something we encounter very 
frequently in standardization is that when you end up with two 
standards, that both are able to take hold and potentially in 
different parts of the world, you have a failure of 
interoperability. And that's exactly what drives all of--you 
know, everybody's work on standardization generally is to try 
to avoid such an area. So it's unfortunate when you encounter 
them, but it's not a topic area where Cisco is actively 
engaged.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. Well, we know that the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975 was--you know, it's hitting its 50-year 
mark and obviously didn't succeed, and so this is going to be 
continuing work for this Committee as we think about the 
prominence of U.S. leadership in measurements and standards-
setting, and all of your input is going to be very welcome as 
we continue to go forward and discuss this topic potentially in 
other Committee hearings.
    And with that, I'm going to yield to our Ranking Member Mr. 
Feenstra for 5 minutes of additional questioning.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair Stevens.
    This is for all the witnesses. And I just want to say thank 
you to all the witnesses again for your testimony. It was 
really impressive. And as I looked at it over the last few 
days, your written testimonies, there's a lot of great 
information in there. So this is really for anyone that wants 
to answer this.
    The NIST for the Future Act includes a proposal for NIST 
through a peer-review process, award grants to private 
companies, nonprofits, and academia to incentivize and support 
their participation in international standards-setting. And 
this is a big task, and this is impressive to do. Do we feel 
this proposal will get these people to the table and get to the 
root of what we're looking at? I'm looking at whether it will 
or will not, and if anybody would like to answer from our 
witnesses, that would be great.
    Mr. Updegrove. I think, yes, it's a good idea and yes, it 
can work. I think it would be important to be aware of where 
it's more realistic to work and less realistic. For example, a 
lot of important technology work obviously goes on in startups, 
but startups will be really hard to get in the room. It's just 
not where their focus is. Founders usually don't know a lot 
about standards. They often operate in stealth mode. Their 
technology often isn't yet protected by patents. So I think 
that they will be difficult to get into the room, and it would 
be good to be realistic about that.
    SMEs (small and mid-size enterprises) on the other hand 
very frequently do participate in standards development, but 
they are under-resourced, and having some economic support 
would probably be more effective in that arena in getting more 
talent into the room.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. You noted that, Mr. Updegrove, in your 
testimony, in your written testimony that I was reading. And 
I'd love for you to expand on this, that you sort of said that 
you recommended that we should expand the idea of private 
sector standard advisory--a standard advisory council, which I 
think is probably a very good idea. Can you expand on that?
    Mr. Updegrove. Sure. One of the unfortunate consequences of 
Congress voting itself out of the standards business back in 
1995 was that it meant that there was not the same incentive 
for broad standards competence across the agencies because they 
had delegated, you know, the main effort of that to the private 
sector. So in that sense I think that government needs to rely 
more on private industry for sort of real-time input at high 
levels. That goes on all the time through ANSI and NIST, but it 
needs to be sort of stood up one-on-one with new panels. ANSI 
has frequently helped set up panels often in cooperation with 
NIST. But if you had a standing group of senior executives that 
could call upon all areas of competency within their companies, 
that when someone on the Hill needs to know what's the answer 
from the industry, what's the input we really need to know, 
that you have that on-call resource to provide it.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. I tend to agree with you. And with 
that, I just want to open this up to everyone sort of on the 
same vein. You know, how do we prepare more experts to 
participate in standards? I mean, to me this is critical as we 
move forward, especially in the complexity of quantum and AI. 
Is there a need for more curriculum around standards, 
especially at the college or collegial level, the academia 
level? If anybody could answer or have a direction on that, I'd 
greatly appreciate it.
    Ms. Saunders. So I'd love to kick it off. I mean, I think 
the answer is yes, wholeheartedly, and it would start--should 
start at the university level or even below it. ANSI's 
Committee on Education has been looking at education, 
incorporating standards into education curricula at the 
university level. NIST also has--for many years has had a grant 
program for standards education, which rewards universities for 
incorporating standards into education. It's--that's really 
important. And once the students graduate and get out into the 
work world, it's also important to continue that training for 
effective participation in standards. So it's not sufficient to 
send somebody to a standards committee with little idea of what 
they're getting themselves into or understand the rules of the 
road and how to effectively leverage those rules. So ongoing 
continuing education training for all participants, and again, 
NIST is doing this very effectively for--across the Federal 
space for Federal technical staff. It's also critical in the 
private sector. And ANSI has been doing this for ISO and IEC 
participants, so we have very effective tag administrators and 
ANSI delegates going to international meetings. I think--and 
individual standards developers also offer their own training 
programs, so I think that's an area we all can work more 
effectively and closely together to expand those training--
continuing education programs, as well as STEM education.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you so much, Mary. I greatly appreciate 
those comments and thoughts. Again, I would just want to 
reiterate I loved the testimony that each of you presented 
today. And with that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. With that, we'll turn to Ms. Ross for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Feenstra, for holding this important meeting. I want to note 
that we have some high school teachers in the house in the back 
from my district from Southeast Raleigh High School, so they're 
visiting Washington, D.C. They've gotten to go to two Committee 
meetings today.
    I represent a district that's home to the largest research 
park in the United States, and it includes hundreds of science, 
technology, and research firms, including Cisco, and these 
companies are involved in robust standards-setting processes 
that promote competition and innovation while also preserving 
safety and the benefits of streamlined engagement with trading 
partners. My district is also home to several major academic 
institutions that have a role to play in the standards-setting 
process. I'm interested to hear from our witnesses about how we 
can further engage with academia and utilize their expertise to 
promote U.S. leadership in standards-setting.
    Unfortunately, cyber criminals are meeting the pace of 
technological development with their increasingly sophisticated 
tactics. Cyber risks threaten every single sector of industry, 
and I'm concerned that adequate cyber hygiene standards are not 
being incorporated into new products and technologies across 
all sectors.
    Dr. Olthoff, beyond NIST's involvement with the Interagency 
International Cybersecurity Standards Working Group, what is 
your agency doing to ensure all industries embrace 
cybersecurity protection standards, and how are you engaging 
with the private sector to set those standards?
    Dr. Olthoff. So thank you for that question. As many people 
know, as we recognize NIST is responsible for the cybersecurity 
framework that guides the cyber security requirements for the 
Federal Government. This has been wildly successful and has 
been adopted across many industries across the United States 
and in fact by many of our international partners and allies. 
This framework is the main driver for cybersecurity guidelines 
that should be followed in order to ensure our security.
    In addition to that, NIST leads the program for the data 
encryption framework, which provides protection in terms of 
protecting data. We also are working on the privacy framework. 
So all of these things put together produce a very secure and 
very effective way for industry and others to protect 
themselves from cyber criminals. All of these frameworks are 
developed by strong competing activities that engage with all 
of the stakeholders that are of interest from very small 
companies to very large to academia. And it's because of the 
objective and nonregulatory nature of NIST that we have this 
unique opportunity to bring together all of the appropriate 
stakeholders so they not only can contribute to the development 
of these frameworks but also can learn about them and utilize 
them in the best possible ways.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Dr. Cooper, as we mentioned, 
Cisco has a very strong presence in my district and is one of 
the many Research Triangle Park (RTP) companies contributing to 
our national information, communications, and technology 
standards and the framework for that. Additionally, one of the 
many reasons that RTP is so well-positioned to excel in 
technological research is because of collaborations with nearby 
academic institutions.
    You note in your testimony that the E.U. has made 
standardization an explicit requirement while--when allocating 
public funds for ICT research. What is the benefit of the 
United States taking a similar approach and further 
incorporating academia in these processes? And does our current 
standards-setting environment have the structure to adopt this 
E.U. approach to government-funded research?
    Dr. Cooper. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question, and 
for homing us so wonderfully in Research Triangle Park.
    So there's really three key ways in which academic and 
other kinds of research benefit the standardization system. The 
first one is through technology transfer. To give an example of 
this, I work a lot of networking and security, and cryptography 
is absolutely critical to furthering these technologies. So in 
these areas we have strong partnerships between industry and 
academic researchers who are really pushing the boundaries of 
mathematics and computer science in inventing new cryptographic 
algorithms that then get translated into standards 
organizations get adopted into communications protocols that we 
use on the internet and other networks to secure our 
communications. But we wouldn't be able to do that if we 
weren't partnering with these researchers.
    The second way is through validation and testing and 
measurement. So sometimes research institutions are the best 
place to be able to do continuous measurement and testing of 
standards that are currently in development to understand 
whether those standards actually meet the properties that the 
standards designers are intending for them from a performance 
or a security perspective or otherwise. So that's another 
important function.
    And then last, sometimes research is a great place to have 
neutral repositories of data. Industry might not want to share 
their proprietary data with each other, but when we have a 
neutral convener in academia, we can share data about standards 
and development, and that helps refine the process and make the 
standards better. So we've seen all of these effects across the 
industries and the sectors that we engage in when it comes to 
filtering academic involvement into standardization.
    And what I propose in my testimony is that we make that 
more explicit when the government is handing out public funds 
to researchers and funding specific research projects in 
particular technology areas, that we think about whether we 
could convert some of those research results into 
standardization or into standards processes. It's not a perfect 
fit in every case, but we've seen benefits from this from the 
E.U. program, and we'd like to explore whether that's possible 
here in the United States as well.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 
indulgence, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And now we'll turn to Dr. 
Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just as a sort of 
side comment to Dr. Cooper, I guarantee you that Cisco does in 
fact have a policy on metrification, that when your engineers 
decide that you're going to put--attach the back panel and 
secure it with either 6-32 machine screws or the metric 
equivalent, you are guaranteed that you're going to make mad 
your maintenance technicians either in the United States or 
your foreign customers, and this is just--that's a reality that 
I know your company and ours has faced for a long time.
    Now, one of the bigger advantages of the U.S. industry-
driven approach to standards-setting is it guarantees that the 
standardization takes place at the appropriate level of 
technical maturity. You know, trying to set standards for the 
innards of quantum computers would be ridiculous at this point. 
On the other hand, it may not be too early to set standards for 
quantum-resistant encryption.
    And so I was wondering if any of you have comments on that, 
of whether there's a danger that if you have a government-
driven system, then it's whatever--you know, it seems like a 
neat new thing to the politicians that will cause you to set 
standards too early under political pressure. Or any comments 
on that?
    Dr. Cooper. Sure, I'm happy to respond first and then open 
it up and completely agree with you on personal preferences 
regarding the metric system but not necessarily in the policy 
position of Cisco having one.
    So I think you're right on the money that what we observe 
is that one of the most important properties of a standard is 
its market relevance, that you want to have players who are 
prepared to commercialize a technology, bring it to market, and 
use the standard in order to drive wide adoption, among other--
both public and private sector actors as the main driver for 
deciding when it's time to standardize. And that doesn't happen 
if you have governments selecting particular technologies or 
saying now is the time, we really need to go, you know, as you 
say, into the innards of the quantum computer or lay down today 
what the standards are going to be for, you know, bias 
measurement and artificial intelligence. It's much better to 
allow the market and the actors in the market to make those 
determinations about when something is ready for 
commercialization and to develop a standard strategy and a 
timeline that matches those incentives and those dynamics.
    Mr. Updegrove. I'd like to weigh in on that if I could. I 
think the answer is it depends. Industry is very good at 
jumping on standards when they think it's appropriate, i.e., 
when they can make money, so standards efforts generally come 
into existence organically when industry thinks the time is 
right and where the effort can be successful.
    I say it depends because if you look back at the early 
wireless standards, you actually had four or five competing 
standards. You had Wi-Fi of course, you had Bluetooth of 
course, but you also had HomeRF and a couple other standards. 
And they were in an open competition in the marketplace to see 
which one would prevail.
    Now, with an interoperability standard, a product doesn't 
have any value in the marketplace until there are many products 
in the marketplace. No one wants to buy the first telephone. So 
in that case it was actually a rather interesting free-market 
effort where eventually two standards succeeded, Bluetooth, 
which migrated to near communication, and then Wi-Fi, which 
evolved for longer communication. And then eventually near-
field communications for different applications.
    So I think the takeaway is that the open market system does 
a pretty good job of not only coming up with standards when 
they're needed but even competing for the best standard, for 
the best application.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, then I won't, you know, belabor--
Betamax and VHS were clearly just net competition, did not land 
on the best technical standard, so it's not perfect.
    There's another area where government and industry 
interests seem to be inseparable in standards-setting, and that 
is intellectual property (IP) compliance, that if you're going 
to adopt a complex standard, that uses some individual 
company's intellectual property for which they will receive 
royalties. You know, that seems like really tough thing, and I 
was just wondering if you have thoughts on how to get the 
balance right there, and also whether we should actually hold 
countries accountable when they violate intellectual property 
norms internationally. I mean, I know that, you know, Cisco, 
the whole issue with your router that was cloned by Huawei 
early on as a means of Huawei gaining great market share in 
internet equipment business if--you know, if China had had a 
functional intellectual property court system back then, Huawei 
would be a wholly owned subsidiary of Cisco. But it is not, and 
it did not. And I was just wondering if we can really separate 
the intellectual property issues or is that going to be with us 
for a long time?
    Dr. Cooper. So completely agree on the need for strong 
enforcement of intellectual property laws and in particular of 
a high-quality patent system. This is, you know, a challenge 
that we face every day in our business and has strong 
interaction with, you know, what we're able to--how we're able 
to innovate and which innovations we're able to bring into 
standardization. So a strong enforcement of intellectual 
property rules and regulations around the world is very 
critical.
    Mr. Foster. But--yes. So the question is is there a place 
at the table in standards-setting for countries that grossly 
violate intellectual property laws? Mr. Updegrove, do you want 
to give that a shot?
    Mr. Updegrove. Intellectual property rights policies are 
really complicated, and they change sector by sector. So, for 
example, in consumer electronics and data formats, patents are 
everywhere and royalties are required. But in internet 
standards and web standards, the norm is that patents are 
available on a royalty-free basis.
    As far as state actors, that's a tough one for the private 
sector to--you know, to address. I think there we really need--
we really do need government assistance if that becomes a 
serious problem.
    Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. I'm over my time, and thank 
you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence and yield back.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, no, thank you, Dr. Foster, and 
thank you again to our witnesses.
    Before we bring the hearing to a close, I think it's worth 
noting, you know, we had a handful of Members, great Committee 
Members from the full Science Committee here and Subcommittee 
for Research and Technology. But in this country's origin is 
the work that we are talking about. The Articles of 
Confederation, you don't need to look too far, this is on the 
NIST Wikipedia page site that, you know, 19--or, excuse me, 
1781, ``The United States in Congress assembled, shall also 
have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the 
alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by 
that of the respective States, fixing the standards and--of 
weights and measures throughout the United States.'' That was 
written into the Articles of Confederation.
    Washington's first address to Congress in 1791 stated, ``A 
uniformity of the weights and measures of the country is among 
the most important objects submitted to you by the 
Constitution, and if it can be derived from a standard at once 
invariable and universal, must be no less honorable to the 
public council than conducive to the public convenience.'' So 
we are talking about, yes, standards vis-a-vis U.S. 
competitiveness, but something that was etched into the 
Preamble documents of the founding of this Nation, our Founders 
knew how important standards were.
    So we, you know, hearken to them as we put forward an 
innovation strategy through the--for the United States. We 
truly--you know, with Ms. Saunders coming from an industry 
association and a great background, we have NIST represented 
through their acting Director, a, you know, just preeminent 
mind for the agency, and Dr. Olthoff being here, as well as Dr. 
Cooper representing alongside Mr. Updegrove, you know, the 
private sector perspectives.
    And one of the beauties and the bragging points of NIST as 
we reflected in this hearing has really been to pursue a 
bottom-up or table-setting approach with industry. We're not 
regulatory. And yet, as Dr. Foster cited in his concluding 
question, you know, where do we turn when standards are being 
violated, particularly as it manifests into international IP 
considerations? Where do we turn? You know, we would see a 
whole-of-government approach, but you have to have NIST at the 
table. And NIST convening the very start of the standards 
conversation for the world is absolutely essential as we go 
forward.
    And certainly reflecting on this century that we are 22 
years into, right, we certainly applaud, you know, the 
industrial age and the concluding of World War II and all of 
the coming of advanced manufacturing that we ushered into the 
world. But when this country was struck by a terrorist attack 
in our first year into this century, it was internet, what, 
0.5, how much information technology was actually on the web 
that began to be proliferated because of U.S. technology and 
U.S. innovation, not only proliferating the internet but 
propagating, you know, the smartphone and a gig economy and 
transforming the world yet again. We didn't do so in an 
isolated fashion, but certainly looking to the standards that 
guided us, as well as the innovation capabilities that we 
grabbed onto.
    And it's again and again, not just in those nascent years, 
but certainly proceeding forward into the Great Recession and 
on and what's--we are seeing with the automotive industry with 
electric vehicles and autonomous vehicle technologies. Things 
that were just a think tank experiment are now a part of our 
enterprise.
    And we're going to continue to go forward here in this 
Committee and with the innovation bills before Congress, 
hopefully passing--doggedly passing something before the end of 
the term because we must--and Mr. Tonko brought up the chip 
shortage and what we need to do about that. This is something 
that Mr. Feenstra and a handful of our colleagues who are on 
the Problem Solvers endorse, pass the CHIPS Act. Get the CHIPS 
Act passed and signed into law. And so we are eager to do that, 
but we are eager to continue to convene with the expertise in 
this panel, from our witnesses as we continue to have the 
standards conversation for the United States of America.
    And so with that, our witnesses are excused, and the 
hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions




                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
                   
Responses by Dr. James K. Olthoff

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Ms. Mary Saunders

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Dr. Alissa Cooper

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Mr. Andrew Updegrove

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record




          Documents submitted by Representative Haley Stevens
          
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]