ular engineering, and other fields. In all of these areas, cold neutron beams will be an invaluable research tool. This fact has been recognized by a high level committee of the National Academy of Sciences as the single most important resource for solving these problems now and in the near-term future. Cold neutron experimental facilities, which were specifically endorsed by them and given highest priority for additions to existing facilities, will provide intense beams of long wavelength neutrons that are able to make key measurements of the internal structure of a wide range of materials.

The United States does not have a facility like the one in Grenoble, France, where more than $140 million has been invested in cold neutron facilities. A facility like the one proposed at NBS is not feasible for the private sector because of the capital investment required for a research reactor and environmental constraints on the construction. The NBS reactor already has the capability to produce the cold neutrons and is the only research reactor in this country which will allow the installation of a cold neutron source large enough to handle the array of instruments and work stations which U.S. researchers need.

Funding for the development of the cold neutron source itself was provided in the fiscal year 1985 budget for NBS. The increase we are requesting, the first of four years, would provide facilities necessary to fully exploit this source. The fiscal year 1986 funds would permit us to complete facility design and begin construction of the experimental hall and cold neutron guides. The plans for this world class facility include four new beam ports to support 15 experimental stations. Four of the experimental stations are expressly designated for industrial users. Since our aim is to operate a truly National Facility, clearly the early operation of the experimental stations available to the private sector are a very high priority.

Earlier, I mentioned that the mission of NBS is very much in tune with the times. Nowhere is this clearer than in our function to provide measurement services in the physical sciences. In order to remain competitive, industry must increase the efficiency of its manufacturing operations. This is especially true with the more sophisticated and higher value-added products. Advances in technology place increased demands on NBS measurement services, since new measurement services do not always supplant our more traditional ones. Thus, we are faced wih providing additional measurements and standards while continuing to maintain much of our existing array of services. We are requesting $1.9 million for Process and Quality Control Measurements which would increase our level of effort in these area and fund the development of advanced measurement methods and basic standards sorely needed by industry. The new services would be in areas such as spectroradiometry, impedance, and microwave measurements, all of which have been identified by industry as top priorities.

Clearly as manufacturing technology becomes more complex, as automation increases, and as quality contol becomes an integral part of the manufacturing process itself, the role played by measurement becomes more crucial. The Process and Quality Control initiative will allow industry to move forward and meet the competition.

Please allow me to quote you a few words of Dr. Arthur Humphrey, Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Research Panel on Biotechnology. "We are at war! An economic war is being waged on the battlefields of high-technology

commercialization."

He and his Committee have prepared a detailed and much publicized report identifying the prime areas of research for and principle technical barriers to the commercialization of biotechnology. The stakes are high! Estimates of the world market for biotechnology-related products by the year 2000 range from $40 to $70 billion/ year. The Humphrey Report, published by the National Academy of Sciences at the end of 1984, has three major conclusions: the chief obstacles to commercialization are likely to be engineering in nature; U.S. should substantially increase research leading to new reactor concepts; and, we must develop a new class of unit operations for handling macromolecules. The $3 million NBS request for Industrial Applications of Biotechnology is completely consistent with those three conclusions. Our planned efforts in new measurement techniques for compositional determination and the development of data and models for enzyme-catalyzed reactions are pivotal elements to the creation of new reactor concepts.

We also plan work on biologically-compatible sensors and separation measurements which are essential to the development of the new class of chemical engineering unit operations needed to handle macromolecular structures. Generic research of the type NBS would support is needed by virtually all companies, yet is too expensive to be undertaken by individual firms, particularly the many small firms which comprise this industry. Our research will be conducted in collaboration with

other government agencies, industry, and universities in order to take advantage of the biological expertise of those organizations and to ensure timely and effective transfer of NBS-developed results to those organizations needing them.

As the Subcommittee directed last year, NBS developed a plan on a national effort in measurements and standards for the biotechnology industry and related industries. Our report, "A National Program of Measurement Services and Standards for Biotechnology at the National Bureau of Standards," has been delivered to the Subcommittee.

Ceramics offer enormous potential as replacements for a wide variety of existing, more costly materials. These Advanced Ceramics represent a new generation of materials particularly suited for certain high technology and related applications. These ceramics possess unique properties, especially resistance to corrosion, high temperatures, and wear which open up a vast array of new applications such as in advanced heat engines, cutting tools, sensors, biomedical devices, and electronic and optical components. The principal barrier to commercialization of these materials is the inability to control production processes so that ceramic products possess uniform and predictable performance characteristics. We are requesting $3.5 million to address the measurement problems which make up a large part of that barrier. As with many measurement problems, these are generic in nature and not specific to a given application or segment of the industry.

The NBS effort will focus on the measurement services required to control the microcracks which form in ceramics and which are the cause of unreliable performance. U.S. industry is facing stiff competition in this area, with Japan already dominating ceramics for electronic components, controlling 50% of the $4.1 billion world market. At stake for the country are not just the industries which produce the advanced ceramics, but also the myriad of industries which will use ceramics in manufacturing their own products. Rapid growth is expected in ceramics with sales reaching $19 billion/year a decade from now. It is clear that one of the keys to industrial success in the future is the ability to be versatile and innovative in materials science and engineering. Advanced ceramics is a good example of a field in which our Nation's industry must move ahead, and this NBS program will go a long way toward establishing the measurement base required for that movement.

There is one other increase in our fiscal year 1986 proposal of $4.9 million, which includes adjustments for next year's costs of the fiscal year 1985 pay increase, and other increases and decreases for personnel and vital services.

I am extremely pleased to report to this Subcommittee on the status of the Class VI supercomputer procurement. A contract was signed with Control Data Corporation on September 28, 1984 for a Cyber 205 with Cyber 855 front end. Installation of the hardware, which arrived on February 25, 1985, is proceeding on schedule. Acceptance testing is scheduled to begin on April 1, 1985. The CDC bid of $7.2 million was extremely favorable to NBS and is well below what we had expected.

There are program decreases in the budget presented to you. The NBS Center for Building Technology would be eliminated (-$3.1 million). In the last 10 years, the Federal government has spent $40 million on this program. It is now appropriate for this effort to be assumed by the private sector and state and local governments. The Federal automated data processing, or ADP, standards program in our Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology (ICST) is proposed to be funded at $5 million. ICST will concentrate on international networking of computers while voluntary standards organizations would be relied upon for the majority of computer-related Federal standards. The NBS Center for Fire Research would be eliminated (-$5.1 million). Again, the Federal government has invested $50 million in this area in the last years. This research should now be taken over by the private sector and state and local governments.

Our equipment replacement program, which was established in 1976 to provide NBS with an equipment level equivalent to comparable research laboratories, will reach its goal in fiscal year 1985, permitting the fiscal year 1986 budget to be reduced by $3.3 million with minimal program impact.

Other decreases represent absorptions and reductions for a fiscal year 1986 Federal pay cut 5 percent ($2.4 million), administrative services reductions and productivity reviews ($3.0 million), reductions to carry out the deficit Reduction Act of 1984 ($1.2 million), and absorptions of base adjustments ($2.2 million).

In summary, I believe that you have before you a budget that is the result of the Administration's careful evaluation of NBS programs and priorities. It is a budget which reflects an appropriate level of resources necessary for NBS to serve industry, government, and academia at a time when this country is increasingly dependent on science and technology advancement while facing massive Federal deficits. NBS is the only Federal agency that supplies the measurement research and services

that serve as the vital connection to link the tens of billions of dollars of research and development that this Nation spends every year with the end result of innovation and productivity improvement for the U.S. economy.

We at NBS have done the best job possible with the resources that have been available to us. The country needs new measurement information and services, and we at NBS need to move ahead in some new and important programs. We believe that this budget will permit us to meet the needs of industry in critical areas, and I urge the Committee to support this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR GORTON AND THE ANSWERS

CENTER FOR FIRE RESEARCH/CENTER FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Question. Dr. Ambler, many Federal regulatory agencies rely on the technical support provided by these Centers. For example, research performed by the Center for Building Technology was used by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) to revise construction safety regulations designed to prevent excavation cave-ins at construction sites. Likewise, research performed by the Center for Fire Research was used by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to generate a flame-retardant standard for children's sleepwear. If these Centers are eliminated, who can the Federal regulatory agencies rely on for objective, neutral research data?

Answer. CFR and CBT do contract work for other Federal agencies, but it is the position of the Administration that the work of CFR and CBT can best be handled by the organizations which have sought the services from NBS, be they Federal, state, local governments or the private sector.

Question. The objectivity of the Center for Building Technology is important when the Bureau is called upon to investigate major structural collapses. For example, the Center's analyses of the Kansas City, Missouri, Hyatt Regency skywalk collapse in 1981 and the East Chicago, Indiana, highway ramp collapse in 1982 provided valuable information to organizations that write building codes and standards. If this Center is eliminated, who can provide an unbiased view of such disasters, that is a viewpoint that is not prepared for litigation?

Who can assure that the valuable results of such investigations are distributed nationally to building code organizations?

Answer. There is obviously no incentive for any private sector firm, university, state or local government or association thereof to indicate a firm commitment to assume any or all of the responsibilities of CBT or CFR as long as U.S. taxpayers subsidize this work. The Federal Government should still, however, withdraw from areas in which state and local government have unchallenged responsibility, particularly when Federal Government is facing dramatic deficits and state and local governments are experiencing budget surpluses. The construction and insurance industries in cooperation with state and local building authorities can and should support this research, perhaps even through the National Conference of State on Building Codes and Standards which can require the dissemination of research findings for the public interest and safety.

Question. The Center for Fire Research provides $2 million annually for fire research programs in universities and research institutions. If this flow of funds stops, how much university-based basic fire research will continue?

Answer. It is dificult to answer this question, but a small amount of fire related research is conducted through funding from the National Science Foundation which can be expected to continue.

Question. If the Center for Building Technology were terminated, what would happen to earthquake research, for example, the development of seismic design and construction provisions, at the Center?

Has any other agency, or have state governments indicated a willingness and ability to perform that research?

Are any special facilities needed to perform it? If so, how much would it cost to replace the facilities?

Answer. We have no plans to conduct earthquake related research other than what is described in the Ñational Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program report recently submitted to congress.

We have no new information regarding willingness to do the work by other organizations. There is obviously no incentive for any private sector firm, university, state or local government or association thereof to indicate a firm commitment to assume any or all of the responsibilities of CBT or CFR as long as U.S. taxpayers subsidize this work. The Federal Government should still, however, withdraw from areas in which state and local government have unchallenged responsibility, particularly when Federal Government is facing dramatic deficits and state and local governments are experiencing budget surpluses. The construction and insurance industries in cooperation with state and local building authorities can and should support this research, perhaps even through the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards which can require the dissemination of research findings for the public interest and safety.

Special facilities are required to perform the earthquake research. While detailed figures are not available we would estimate the cost of replacement of the NBS facilities and equipment at approximately $5 to $10 million.

Question. Did the Bureau and the Department of Commerce request full funding for the Centers for Fire Research and Building Technology from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

Answer. Yes. Initially, the Department requested full funding, however, the Department did not appeal OMB's decision to eliminate the funding for CBT and CFR.

GS 11-15 FREEZE

Question. How will the Bureau implement the GS 11-15 freeze?

Answer. NBS is implementing the reduction through filling only two out of every three vacancies in the GS 11-15 range.

Question. Please provide the committee with the following:

a. the number of employees in pay grades 11-15;

b. the percentage of employees in pay grade 11-15 who hold technical positions; c. the turnover or separation rate of technical employees in pay grades 11-15. The separation rate of non-technical GS 11-15 employees.

Answer. There were 1501 employees in pay grades 11-15 at the end of fiscal year 1984. Of the employees in pay grades 11-15, 81 percent hold scientific and technical positions. The separation rate of technical employees in this grade range is 5 percent; the separation rate of non-technical GS 11-15 employees is 8 percent.

INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY (ICST)

Question. Dr. Amber, you mention in your testimony that if the Institute for Computer Science and Technology is funded at $5 million, the Bureau will rely upon voluntary standards organizations for the majority of computer-related Federal standards.

Is there a specific organization in the private sector that will be able to take the lead in coordinating and communicating with Federal agencies to determine the need for Federal standards and guidelines?

Answer. We are unaware of a particular private sector organization that would fulfill this specific role at this time.

Question. Will reliance on voluntary standards-making organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) lead to substantial delays in establishing standards?

Answer. There are various reasons why standards organizations proceed slowly both with and without Federal Government involvement in the form of technical support. It is possible that fewer standards may be developed than would otherwise occur. There also exists a likelihood that more agencies may develop their own standards and that a degree of incompatibility may be a consequence.

Question. What program or areas of research will be negatively affected or eliminated if the $5 million cut is approved?

Will the Institute continue its support for the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980? If not, how will the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fulfill the tasks assigned by the Paperwork Reduction Act?

Answer. The loss of $5 million will confine ICST's activities to a reduced program in the area of international networking standards. All other work will be terminated.

Question. Dr. Amber, cost benefit studies prepared under contract for the National Bureau of Standards indicate that the estimated benefits to the government resulting from the use of Federal information processing standards greatly exceed the cost of standards development by the Institute. For example, analysts estimate the government saved more than $70 million by adopting a new standard the Bureau

developed for a programming language called COBOL. Considering such statistics, does the cut in funding conflict with the Administration's goals set forth in the Office of Management and Budget's "Management for Fiscal Year 1986" report which requires Federal agencies to obtain a minimum of 10% return on investment for all computer technology and to cut software maintenance costs by 25%?

Answer. Cost benefit analyses indicate savings as a result of standards development and use. Budget priorities for NBS were formulated with particular concern for areas where the Federal Government may be undertaking efforts that are more properly the role of the private sector and state and local governments. Moreover, individual agencies can take the responsibility of insuring returns on their investment and reducing their software maintenance costs.

Question. Did the Bureau and the Department of Commerce request full funding for the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology from the Office of Management and Budget (OPM)?

Answer. Yes. However, the Department did not appeal OMB's recommendation to reduce funding for ICST.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Dr. Ambler, let's turn now to the four substantive new initiatives, beginning with biotechnology. The Committee has reviewed your report, "A National Program of Measurement Services and Standards for Biotechnology at the National Bureau of Standards," and we have some questions concerning it.

Question. Most of the program objectives in section IV of the Bureau's proposal seem to be basic research topics; the National Science Foundation (NSF) currently funds these types of projects. For example, programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and in industry are studying protein structure and function. Is the Bureau the proper place for this type of basic research? Answer. The research performed by NBS supports the development of a quantitative foundation for measurement. This foundation is the critical element needed for a national system of measurement, ensuring compatibility in commerce, trade, technological development, and proper functioning of a voluntary standards system. Measurement services developed by NBS are a critical part of this foundation. Aspects of NBS's measurement research are basic, but build upon and do not duplicate research performed at NIH or supported by NSF. Moreover, neither NIH, NSF, nor any other institutions, public or private, have the responsibility or inclination to harmonize measurement in the U.S. (See also answer to question below.)

Question. A number of laboratories across the country are working on each of the program objectives mentioned in section IV of the Bureau's proposal. Will the Bureau's biotechnology program duplicate these research projects which are already being funded, for the most part, by NSF and industry?

Answer. There are in fact no other laboratories in the U.S. working on the measurement-service objectives mentioned in section IV of the Bureau's proposal. The combination of a quantitative foundation for measurement, provision of services for ensuring compatibility of measurement, and leadership in voluntary standards development is unique to NBS. In developing measurement services, NBS draws upon the expertise of other laboratories. It does so in an aggressively interactive mode, actively soliciting cooperation and communication with other organizations. Visiting scientist programs, hosting of workshops and symposia, and participation in voluntary standards and professional organizations are among the many ways that NBS derives support from and provides services to the technological and scientific communities. Each year a typical organizational unit at NBS (about 120 scientists) interacts with several thousand counterparts from industry, universities and government.

Question. Many of the Bureau's program objectives have been areas of concentration for chemical and biochemical engineers and the fermentation industry for the past 30 to 40 years. Why weren't standards required from the Bureau much earlier by university researchers and industry? Has the recent addition of genetic engineering to industry's research techniques now made it necessary for the Bureau to develop standardized measurements and standard reference materials for the biotechnology industry?

Are these services required by the biotechnology industry now or in the near future?

Answer. Measurement standardization is critical in the commercialization phase of technological development because it is in this stage when compatibility is needed for trade (buyer-seller agreements), quality assurance (raw materials purity, product purity, product consistency), and for a variety of other applications, less important