[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]