STATEMENT OF DR. JORDAN J. BARUCH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dr. BARUCH. If I may, however, I would like to summarize what is in that statement. Mr. THORNTON. Fine. Please proceed. Dr. BARUCH. As I have mentioned to you in the past, the National Bureau of Standards is a very important organization to my office and to me personally. It's the place which people who study instrumentation in engineering have for years looked toward as Mecca. Right now I have the job of trying to help shape its future, and I consider that a grave responsibility. There are three National Bureau of Standards areas that are occupying much of the office's attention at the present time. The first is that the Bureau's present level of basic scientific competence may be insufficient to meet future demands placed on it. That is a major concern of our statutory visiting committee, as you will hear later today. The administration is aware that there may indeed be a problem in this area, and currently we are analyzing funding and personnel problems. The administration will then consider what can and should be done to meet those problems. Second, we're examining ways to improve the congruence of the Bureau's organization and its tasks. As you know, the Bureau's tasks range from basic research into the fundamental properties of matter, energy, and time to helping solve highly applied problems of many Federal mission agencies and of industry. The development of an organizational schema to span such an array of tasks and to secure optimum interaction from the researchers, engineers, industry representatives, and others is very complex. As our proposals take shape within the Department and we review those proposals with the President's reorganization project staff we will keep the committee informed. Lastly, we are examining how and whether the Bureau's activities in cooperative technology development can in the future be brought to bear on the problems raised by the growing technological and industrial competence of other nations. Japan, Germany, and I have recently learned, the People's Republic of China have made a major national commitment to industrial growth based on improved technology. That policy raises severe competitive problems for U.S. industry, and it may have implications for our own foreign technology policy vis-a-vis the less developed countries. To deal with these potential problems, from the technological side, I am proposing for review by the Department and the administration a program aimed at the development of infratechnology. The Bureau of Standards has long been the center of excellence in our scientific and technological community. From what I see going on now, in its planning for the future and its willingness to tackle major problems, I think that by gearing up to build on that position, it has the opportunity to move from excellence to greatness, and I would like to help it do so. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. THORNTON. I want to thank you for your excellent testimony. I am among those who are very concerned with the narrowing gap between American technology and innovation and that of other Western countries, and it seems to me to be vital that we explore ways of continuing to develop a lead and to look at the future. It's not simply enough to stay ahead today; we need to be making wise choices that will cause us to continue to lead in the future; or without that thrust we may find ourselves unable to compete in world markets, and what a tremendous tragedy that would be to our country. Do you have any further comment with regard to what efforts we might make to continue to keep our lead? Dr. BARUCH. One of the problems we have is that countries like Japan, Germany, and now the People's Republic of China, are throwing national resources behind their industrial technology for development. Private industry in this country has been able to compete very satisfactorily, technologically, as long as they were competing on a company-to-company basis, but whether they can continue that competition when they are, in essence, competing against whole countries is questionable. Japan, for example, has started a $340 million program in largescale integrated circuit manufacture. They're not doing that because they want to sell large-scale integrated circuits. Rather, such circuits form the basic technology for the Japanese watch industry, television, consumer electronics in general, computers, telecommunications, and a host of products, I suspect, that don't even exist at the present time. We're trying to formulate ways in which our Government and industry might collaborate, then, in meeting such competition. That formulation task has, as you know, just been going for a few months. But it's a problem that the administration is cognizant of and will be examining with us in some detail. We are looking for strategies to deal with that kind of competitive pressure. Mr. THORNTON. The failure to tabulate and recognize the impact of acceptance of new technologies can be illustrated by what's happening in steel right now, can it not, Dr. Baruch, to some extent? Or is that too simple an observation? Dr. BARUCH. Mr. Thornton, the steel problem is one that requires a great deal of analysis. One of the things that I've become acquainted with in traveling around the world is essentially the excess capacity for the production of steel that exists worldwide. Whether that can be dealt with by technological change, I think is still an open question. It needs a great deal more analysis. Mr. THORNTON. Where there is excess capacity, however, the less efficient or less economical capacity is the first to feel the crunch. Is that true? Dr. BARUCH. That would certainly be true in most industries. Mr. THORNTON. Yes. No great revelation involved in that statement. Dr. BARUCH. No great analysis needed for that. Mr. THORNTON. I would like, if I may, to digress briefly from the National Bureau of Standards to another area in which I have been very concerned about Government policies which may inhibit development of innovations, and that is in the patent policy area. I don't want to ask you to comment if you do not wish to do so. But it has long been a concern of mine that the many varied patent policies may have the effect of actually slowing the dissemination of new inventions and then making those inventions available to the private sector. If you have a comment I would be pleased to receive it. If not, take it and tell me what you'd like to do with that question. Dr. BARUCH. As you know, there is a Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Committee that has been examining patent policy for the administration, trying to come to a policy that balances the desires to generate innovation through utilization against the needs to maintain the equity of the public in publicly supported research. I'm sure you're aware of how complex a task that is. Mr. THORNTON. Yes, sir. Dr. BARUCH. But it is one that is occupying a considerable portion of the administration's attention at the present time, and will be until it's resolved, I'm sure. Mr. THORNTON. A reason I asked the question was to indicate that sometime next year we hope to explore this question in greater detail, and hope that we'll be able to have the results of some of that study and suggestions available during that time. Dr. BARUCH. I will look forward to it. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Wirth, do you have any questions of Dr. Baruch? Mr. WIRTH. I do not at this moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much. Dr. Baruch, I want to ask if you would be willing to respond to such questions as may be addressed to you in writing by the staff? Dr. BARUCH. To the best of my ability. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much. [The questions and responses to be submitted follow:] Q. 1. Should any legislation be enacted to modify the Bureau's mission? There does not appear to be a need for new legislation at this time. A review of the programs planned for the Bureau including its role in the Cooperative Technology Program indicates that the Department of Commerce has authority under existing legislation to carry out these programs. Q. 2. How should short-term applied work be balanced against long-term fundamental research at the Bureau? The balance between short-term applied work and long-term fundamental research should not be a trade-off. Short-term work assigned by either the Congress or by the President is usually of urgent nature and must take priority. Such important work should merit its own resources and thus not erode the research and services provided by NBS and so basic to its mission. Q. 3. (a) For which existing mission of the Bureau are current resources (money and people) inadequate? (b) What levels would be adequate? (c) How important is it that this work be done? All of the existing missions of the Bureau are in need of resources, both money and people, to build and maintain their competence. I will leave the details of these needs on a program by program basis to Dr. Ambler. However, I would like to mention some of these needs and stress their importance briefly. The Bureau has planned programs that are responsive to the Brooks Act, has requested necessary funding to carry them out and has reprogrammed $2 million of its own funding. However, the funding necessary to adequately respond to these responsibilities in the past has not been forthcoming. Discussions of such a Government-wide program with the General Services Administration (GSA), OMB, and the 12 operating agencies which manage over 97 percent of all Federal computer expenditures have already identified a $100 million, five-year Federal effort required in ADP standards alone. These standards are needed to facilitate cost avoidance savings identified by the Brooks hearings of approximately $100 million annually. The failure to develop a comprehensive Standard Reference Data program means that important national programs are being adversely affected by the lack of reliable data bases. New resources are needed to develop the comprehensive measurement services required to support the Radiation Control for the Health and Safety Act. Owing to lack of resources including facilities, NBS is unable to undertake the long-term research that is necessary to develop new and urgently needed measurement techniques for large-scale stationary noise sources required in support of the Noise Control Act of 1972. Q. 4. (a) How would the proposed "National Centers for Cooperative Technology" work? The National Centers for Cooperative Technology (NCCT) will provide a forum and partial resources for government, industry, technical institutes and universities to cooperate in the development of needed technology in instances where the private sector, acting alone, does not address the technology. The program will especially seek to innovate in technologies that remove sector-wide obstacles to economic well-being in American industry. Operating principles include: Problems and opportunities will be considered following submission of requests by users rather than being developed by the Government. Each project undertaken will be planned and implemented collaboratively, with technology producers, technology users and the public. Each project undertaken will have a targeted end point for Federal participation and a plan for strengthening the private sector institutions which address similar problems. The procedures for conduct of the program will be designed, working closely with industry leaders, during FY 1978. Final procedures would be published in the Federal Register late in the fiscal year, inviting requests by technology users for the conduct of cooperative tasks. By the early part of FY 1979, requests by users should be forthcoming and problem-specific analyses can being. Systems analyses and microeconomic analyses would be employed to determine what impact new technological developments could have in addressing sector-wide industry problems. Reseources for the analytical work will be considered in the FY 1979 budget. Resources for undertaking cooperative problem solutions would be requested in the FY 1980 budget. Q. 4(b) What are industry's views of the National Centers idea? Industries' views will be sought through the aforementioned Federal Register notice. We anticipate that these views will vary according to factors such as the fragmentation within the industry, the dependence of the industry on technology and the intensity of domestic and international competition. In general, industrial spokesmen agree that there is a growing competitiveness in international commerce, that the U.S. domestic market is being invaded by international products, that U.S. innovation seems to be declining, that U.S. industry is underinvęsting in technology development, and that there should be improvement in government/industry cooperation. Several industry leaders have published articles which indicate the need for a program similar to the one being proposed. See for example: "Technology Cooperation for Survival" by William C. Norris, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Control Data_Corporation (Feb. 1977). Reprints available from Control Data Corporation, P.O. Box O, Public Relations Department, HON 11Y, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440. Mr. THORNTON. I do appreciate your appearing here this morning, and your fine testimony. Dr. BARUCH. My pleasure, sir. Mr. THORNTON. Our next witness is Dr. Ernest Ambler, who is the Acting Director of the National Bureau of Standards. Dr. Ambler, you're welcome to our committee hearings. We have received a copy of your prepared statement, which, without objection, will be made a part of the record, in full, and I would like to ask you at this time to proceed to summarize or highlight that statement, as you may choose. [The prepared statement and biographical sketch of Dr. Ernest UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE STATEMENT BY DR. ERNEST AMBLER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. I WILL START BY PROVIDING A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE BUREAU, AND WILL THEN LOOK AT CURRENT OPERATIONS, OPPORTUNITIES, PROBLEMS AND COURSES OF ACTION. NBS WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS IN 1901, AND OUR BASIC LEGISLATIVE MANDATE HAS BEEN UPDATED OVER THE YEARS. IN BRIEF, THE ORGANIC ACT UNDER WHICH WE OPERATE ASSIGNS US 5 MAJOR FUNCTIONS: DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS OF PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT - DETERMINING PHYSICAL MATERIALS PROPERTIES AND PHYSICAL CONSTANTS DEVELOPING TEST METHODS FOR MATERIALS, MECHANISMS, AND STRUCTURES - ESTABLISHING STANDARD PRACTICES IN COOPERATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR PROVIDING ADVISORY SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES |