ATTACHMENT.-WHAT IF THE CFR IS SHUT DOWN?

1. The fire safe cigarette research must be completed.—This essential research can only be accomplished by CFR. It took 50 years to get a bill written that Congress could support. The bill requires CFR to perform the research necessary to make "fire safe" the number one cause of fire deaths in the United States.

2. Combustion toxicity is an issue where the CFR is required.-The tremendous public debate over combustion product toxicity is one in which there is almost no neutral ground. Those responsible for public safety get facts from combustible materials industries on one side, and those who make non-combustible products on the other. While there may be valid points on both sides, regulators are poorly equipped to determine which information is fact and which is simply self-serving in this complex area. The Center is the only credible source of technical information and, hence, occupies the only neutral ground in a hotly contested arena.

Neither NFPA nor the two largest independent fire testing laboratories have any biological testing capability. Several smaller testing laboratories do, but they are already trying to sell their particular tests, so it's hard to see who would fill the need for neutrality. Yet, if the CFR is not funded, near anarchy could result.

3. Private sector not equipped to pick up work of the CFR.-As part of NBS, the Center for Fire Research's job is to develop methods to measure fire performance and to help decide what level of performance is needed. By contrast, industry provides proprietary products and services. In fire protection, these proprietary products usually must meet specific requirements-requirements that are often set based on work done by the Center. At present, NBS and the private sector do not compete, but perform complementary functions.

If the Center were to be abolished, the private sector would have to take on the role of umpire where now it is a participant in the game, and this raises a potential for severe conflict of interest.

4. Other countries have national fire research laboratories.-Most Western European countries, as well as Canada and Japan have government supported fire research laboratories. (Even China and the Soviet Union have such organizations.) Although input from the private sector is encouraged, in no case is the responsibility for coderelated research left in the hands of industry.

5. Center supports most fire research in this country.—If funding is halted for the Center, virtually all fundamental research in fire would cease. This is because the Center supports all of the university-based research in the area, as well as its own in-house program. Therefore, shutting down the CFR shuts down more than an organization-it shuts down an entire area of science.

6. Rebuilding capability at the CFR is not readily done.—In addition to its operating budget, the Center has perhaps $10 million in equipment and facilities, most of it immovable.

If the private sector were to assume the role now played by NBS, NBS would either have to make these facilities available to tenant researchers or the facilities would have to be duplicated elsewhere.

Where testing is routine, private laboratories already carry out testing on a business basis. For example, Underwriters Laboratories uses a number of CFR-developed tests as part of its listing services.

The development of test methods and criteria involves a breadth of staff and facilities that even the largest private labortories do not possess. It is obviously more cost-effective for NBS, using existing laboratory facilities, to continue developing test methods than for several laboratories, independently, each to build such facilities and develop their own, proprietary, competitive test methods.

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

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR GORTON AND THE ANSWERS

Question. Mr. Gerard, as you know the Center for Fire Research provides $2 million annually for fire research in universities and research institutions.

If this flow of funds stops, how much basic fire research in universities will continue?

How important is such rescarch to the fire prevention community?

Answer. I cannot speak with an absolute certainty but I do know this-research costs money, even in a university, therefore, it follows that if the funds from NBS stop it will create a void which will not be filled from any other source.

The development of new and improved technology to deal with the fire problem in the United States is critical. Basic research is essential to develop the means for stepping out of the past and into the future.

Question. Mr. Gerard, does the Center for Fire Research have unique equipment or facilities which would be difficult for the private sector to replicate?

Would it be possible for the Bureau to rent out its unique facilities to tenant researchers?

Answer. Yes, the Center for Fire Research has an unique capability to conduct research that cannot be replicated in the private sector. Even more important than the hardware and facilities, however, would be the loses of the multi-disciplinary staff that has taken the past ten years to assemble and develop into a team.

I suppose it is possible. The question is: Would it serve the same purpose, i.e., unbiased, objective research and the answer, without prejudice, is no.

Question. Mr. Gerard, the Center for Fire Research has been level funded for several years. Has the lack of funding increases affected the quality or level of research performed by the Center? Do you feel there are research areas the Center should be exploring but isn't because of lack of resources?

Answer. Level funding at the CRS has had no affect on the quality of work done, however, it has limited the number of research projects and reduced the scope of those. This subject area requires a broad-based objective team of unbiased researchers, willing and able to report their findings with courage and candor. Such a group is the research team at CFR.

Senator GORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Gerard, for a most helpful statement.

Mr. Henriques, we will hear from you.

Mr. HENRIQUES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee:

We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. CBEMA is the trade association of manufacturers and assemblers of information processing, business and communications products, supplies and services. I was glad to hear Dr. Ambler talk of the biotech market influence and the economic position that he hopes that biotech will take in the next few years, because there is a very close analogy in the field of computers.

Our 40 member companies had combined revenues of almost $112 billion in 1983. They employ more than 1.2 million people worldwide and have contributed to a positive balance of trade last year in 1984 of $4.75 billion. That is in products only. We do not know quite yet how to measure the intangibles, as it were, in licensing and commerce in technology, but these would add significantly, perhaps as much as 50 percent more to the positive balance of trade.

My career in computing and communications began at the National Bureau of Standards in 1956, and since then I have been involved in the development and use of this technology both in Government and in industry. I have been involved throughout that period of time in the development of national and international computer technology standards, and have a firsthand knowledge of the technical and political challenges faced by the Institute for Computer Science and Technology.

We are deeply concerned about the proposed 50-percent reduction in the ICST funding. This is the fourth year that such proposals have been made, and we think that this would affect a critical national resource, the ICST, that focuses Government agency requirements and represents these requirements in arenas where national and international standards are developed.

ICST is uniquely situated to be an effective and impartial negotiator in the standards development process. It promotes voluntary

international standards that help to preserve our industry's competitive position in the world market, while supporting the users' needs for standards to achieve increased productivity and delivery of services at reduced costs.

As you know, it was the Brooks Act that established the ICST with three principal functions: One was to develop needed Federal ADP standards; a second is to give technical advice and guidance to Government agencies; and the third is to perform necessary research.

The current program is addressing areas of major interest including:

Office automation; languages and software development; database technology; computer graphics; computer networking; hardware interfacing; flexible media such as disks; document interchange; and security procedures and technology.

They have provided leadership and guidance to the Federal Government in these areas, as well as informing and assisting the private sector. Work in each of these areas would be severely reduced or eliminated under the proposed reduction. ICST's role in providing guidelines and standards for the Government's use of computers and communications technology is cost effective and improves productivity for the Government.

The work that NBS does in the continued development of software test procedures, media testing, computer graphics and security could be seriously hampered. If this were to happen, there would be a proliferation of separate agency procurement specifications, which would lead to inefficiency and added cost in Government procurement of computers and in the operation of the computers once received.

Further, the proposed reduction of the ICST's budget would undoubtedly eliminate the key role the Institute has played in the development of standards for computer communication network interfaces and measurement techniques for testing computer protocol performance. Their work on test methods that support the development and implementation of computer network interface standards will assure that the computer products of different manufacturers will work together using international standards. This work must continue if we are to maintain a viable economy and a viable contribution in the world marketplace.

It has been suggested that the private sector could pick up some or all of the programs that would have to be dropped by ICST. We can appreciate the desire to transfer certain Government activities to the private sector. Indeed, we generally support that policy. But with all due respect to that point of view, we believe that the organization and mission of the ICST, and especially its neutrality and its nonproprietary technology, are not transferrable to the private sector to any significant degree.

It would take any private sector organization several years to reach the level of development and expertise that ICST currently has, and if and when that level were reached we seriously doubt that the neutrality and the nonproprietary aspects of the ICST programs would remain. Meanwhile, other countries of the world would be gaining on and surpassing us in these areas and, as I mentioned earlier, the loss of this centralized source of help to the

Government would create expense, less effectiveness, and mass confusion.

In particular, in a somewhat sidelight area, the help that the ICST can perform and provide to the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce in rationalizing export control criteria has often been overlooked and is a significant value to the industry when we work with the Commerce Department, DOD, and the intelligence community in trying to achieve a rational set of export controls so as not to hamper the export markets for our industry.

We feel very strongly about this. We think ICST is very important to the American productivity. As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, our industry has contributed to a positive balance of payments in products and we have averaged better than $5.68 billion since 1979. Some of the downturn in the last year we suspect may have to do with the current dollar imbalance, but we would sincerely worry about a change in ICST's role to support the needed networking and telecommunications technologies to maintain our competitiveness.

We strongly urge that the budget for ICST be funded at least at the same level as fiscal year 1985 in 1986, and it seems to me that the expenditure of $10 million to more effectively utilize $14 billion in Federal information technology expenditures annually would be money well spent, even if we ignore the benefits to the private

sector.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR GORTON AND THE ANSWERS

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

Answer. We believe that the voluntary consensus standards process is the preferred method of standards development because it is the only method that provides all interested parties (i.e. users, producers and general interest groups) the opportunity to participate in the development of standards. This wide range of participation insures that the resulting standard will be one that can be most useful and beneficial to all concerned parties.

It also helps to avoid development of standards by different groups covering the same subject matter that will be duplicative and conflicting with each other, resulting in products that can't be used together in a compatible way.

ICST has been a major contributor to the voluntary standards development process. As the representative of the Federal government, they represent one of the largest blocks of computing users in the world. Their participation helps to ensure that the necessary balance of interests in the standards development process is maintained.

Question. What unique role does the Institute play in voluntary standards development?

Answer. The role of ICST in voluntary standards development is unique in the following ways:

It is a critical national resource for focusing the Government agencies' requirements and representing these requirements in arenas where national and international standards are developed.

As a part of the National Bureau of Standards, it is uniquely situated to be an effective impartial negotiator in the standards development process. It promotes voluntary international standards that preserve U.S. industry's competitive positions in the world market while supporting users' needs for standards to achieve increased productivity and delivery of services at reduced cost.

Its continued development of software test procedures, media testing, computer graphics and security is a unique and valuable service to Government and industry. Four examples of ICST's unique role are:

(1) Testing and certification of magnetic surfaces to assure that when a product is received it will work in a computer system. The work ICST has done in the development of standard reference materials for magnetic media (e.g., tapes, disks) is highly significant to the quality of American products around the world.

(2) Development of the Data Encryption Standard, DES, which provides for security in data communications in non-defense applications. ICST drew together the interested parties in the industry and produced the standard that is accepted now as a worldwide standard for data encryption.

(3) Development of network protocols and test methods. ICST has been playing a major role in the development of consensus standards for computer communication network interfaces and measurement techniques for testing computer protocol performance. This work will assure that computer products of different manufacturers will work together using international standards.

(4) Development of the information resource directory system (IRDS) standards. ICST drew together users and suppliers of IRDS software and produced the technical specifications which provided the basis for the proposed national and international standard for this important class of computer software system. ICST is_currently working with industry to develop test procedures to support this standard. In addition to its role in voluntary standards development, ICST plays a unique and invaluable role in providing guidelines and standards to help the government to improve productivity through the cost-effective use of computers and communications technology. The pace of new technology is growing so fast that this kind of help is essential. Without this central help, the other government agencies would be left to establish their own guidelines and standards. This would result in the proliferation of widely varying technical specifications used in procurements from separate agencies which would result in greater expense, less effectiveness and mass confusion in government procurement of computers and related services and supplies, and in the operation of the computers once received.

Question. Do you see a need for a private organization, initially supported by government seed money, to develop network standards and test methods?

Answer. We feel that no useful purpose would be served by creation of yet another private organization to develop network standards. In the U.S. this work is currently being carried out under the auspices of Accredited Standards Committees X3, Information Processing Systems, T1, Telecommunications, IEEE and EIA. The work of these organizations is being closely coordinated with the international work going on in ISO and CCITT. ICST represents the U.S. Government's interests in all of these activities.

ICST works effectively with both vendors and users in developing technical positions and advancing standards that serve both sets of interests. We see no reason to change a mechanism that works well.

With regard to test methods, ICST's work which supports the development and implementation of the computer network interface standards will assure that computer products of different manufacturers will work together using international standards. This work must continue. It serves the essential needs of preserving U.S. industry's competitive positions in the world market while supporting users' needs for standards to achieve increased productivity and delivery of services at reduced cost.

We do not believe ICST's work on computer network test methods, or any other part of ICST, should be transferred to a private organization. We can appreciate the desire to transfer certain government activities to the private sector. Indeed, we generally support that policy. But with all due respect to that point of view, we believe that the organization and mission of ICST, and especially its neutrality and non-proprietary technology, are not transferrable to the private sector to any significant degree.

It would take any private sector organization established for this purpose several years to reach the level of development and expertise that ICST currently has. If and when that level were reached, we seriously doubt that the neutrality and nonproprietary aspects of the ICST programs would remain. Meanwhile, the other countries of the world would be gaining on and surpassing us in these areas.

Question. Do you think the private sector would be willing to provide funds and technical personnel to support such an organization?

What magnitude of funding and number of technical personnel would you expect the private sector to commit?