NIST Receives Congressional Support for In-House Laboratories

Now that the fiscal year 1996 budget process is complete, Congress turns its attention to FY 1997. In the past few weeks, both appropriating and authorizing subcommittees in the House have heard testimony on the budget request and programs of the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. An April 16 House Science Technology Subcommittee hearing on the Commerce Department’s technology programs was abbreviated due to the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. NIST and Commerce officials came before the House Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee on April 25 to discuss their budget priorities, and on May 2 the Technology Subcommittee invited witnesses to talk about the crucial role the NIST in-house laboratories play in measurement and standards-setting.

At the April 25 appropriations hearing, Under Secretary for Technology Mary Good and NIST Director Arati Prabhakar described NIST’s portfolio of intramural research (for standards and measurement) and extramural cooperative programs with the private sector (the Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing Extension Partnerships.) Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) said he was “a great supporter” of NIST’s core laboratories, and seemed open-minded about the value of the extramural activities. He cautioned that budgets would be constrained, but added, “lack of funding does not mean you’re not doing good work.”

Though many House Republicans wanted to eliminate the program entirely, Rogers noted that the final 1996 appropriation provided $221 million for the Advanced Technology Program, intended to be sufficient to cover the 1996 costs for continuation of prior-year grants. Prabhakar said that amount represented NIST’s best estimate of the costs for ongoing awards, but she displeased Rogers by adding that she hoped to “squeeze out” some funding for new awards. While a prohibition on awarding new grants was removed from the final bill language, Rogers replied warningly, “I think you know that the clear intent” of the funding was to finance prior-year grants.

Rogers also inquired about NIST’s request to remove the “sunset” clause for the Manufacturing Extension centers, which terminated federal funding after six years. Prabhakar responded that while most of the centers would be able to continue operating without federal funds, they would likely cut back efforts to reach out to the smallest manufacturers.

The May 2 hearing of the Technology Subcommittee, chaired by Connie Morella (R-MD) - who has a NIST lab in her district - was an opportunity to draw attention to, and support for, the vital work the NIST labs perform in setting standards for the country, and often internationally. She characterized the labs’ contributions as frequently “unnoticed and unrecognized.” Katharine Gebbie, Director of NIST’s Physics Laboratory, stated that physics “is at the heart, the very core” of all physical measurements and standards, which the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain. The research at her lab, she said, spans the whole range from measurements for fundamental physics to industry’s immediate needs. Kumar Patel, Vice Chancellor of Research for the University of California, added that NIST was vital to the academic and industrial research communities, both for its research and for programs involving graduate students, visiting fellows, collaborative efforts with industry and universities, and development and calibration of instruments. Buhdatt Paliwal of the University of Wisconsin discussed the NIST labs’ role in ensuring the quality and accuracy of tools for medical diagnostics and treatment.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) remarked that last year, legislation attempting to eliminate the Commerce Department had proposed privatizing the NIST labs. Patel asserted that “fundamental standards clearly have to be kept by a national agency;" private industry would keep the results proprietary rather than propagating them for the use of all. He added that last year, when he was President of the American Physical Society, the society “took a strong stand” against the privatization proposal (see FYI #126, 1995.)

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) commented that while he supported elimination of the Commerce Department, the NIST labs’s work was “an important government function.” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) agreed that “there are basic functions the government still needs to do.” Morella noted with pleasure the universal support for the laboratories among subcommittee Members. The only PhD physicist in Congress, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), while not a Member of the subcommittee, made an appearance to “register strong support” for NIST’s core functions and relate his prior experience as a visiting fellow. To emphasize Members’ support, Gutknecht reported that in its FY 1997 authorizing legislation for NIST, the subcommittee plans to recommend a 10 percent increase (to $280.6 million) for the laboratories. They received $259 million for FY 1996, and the Administration’s request for FY 1997 is $271 million.

Rep. George Brown (D-CA), the science committee’s Ranking Minority Member, asked witnesses whether NIST’s cooperative programs with industry constituted “corporate welfare,” as some critics have charged. Rita Colwell, President of the University of Maryland’s Biotechnology Institute, responded that academia, industry and the government must work together “if we’re going to remain the world leader.” Brown opined that the scientific community had contributed to fostering an attitude of isolationism among the different sectors, and expressed hope that it will take the lead in “helping to remedy” the situation.