3.5(j)-Other Standardization Legislation and "The
Standardization of Weights and Measures"

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology requested sequential referral of several bills under Rule X(1)(r)(2) dealing with "the Bureau of Standards, the standardization of weights and measures, and the metric system". The specific pieces of legislation were H.R. 2837, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988; H.R. 4065, the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act; H.R. 2693, the Asbestos Information Act of 1987; H.R. 4325, the Medical Testing Improvement Act of 1988; and H.R. 5051, the Fastener Quality Assurance Act of 1988. Each of these bills were within the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's responsibilities for standards, measures, or lab certification. The Committee's efforts were assisted by the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology.

The Committee interprets "standardization of weights and measures" as the process of establishing standards, weights, and measures. Regarding "measures", the Committee's jurisdiction encompasses research and development associated with the science of measurement, which includes the development of equipment for measurement, and the process by which measurement is conducted. Perfecting measurement tools and processes is just the first step in developing a system of science and engineering or technology dependent upon measurement accuracy and precision. Standardization of measurement is the key to technical validity. Without the ability to duplicate research results through measurement, it would be impossible to validate research results or to apply them. Standardization requires traceability to a single accurate source, a role the Federal Government assumed with the creation of the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology-NIST) in 1901. A typical NIST task in standardization of the measurement process is its assessment of watthour meters which are used to calculate the electricity bills of utility customers nationwide. The NIST assures measurement accuracy within acceptable limits of a meter supplied by a utility, which then is used as a master to calibrate the thousands of meters monitoring customers' homes. This process provides traceability of all power consumption measurement to NIST and assures that a watthour used in California is measured as accurately as a watt-hour used in New York.

The NIST is the lead federal agency involved in the research, development and dissemination of measurement tools and processes and of standard reference materials. Currently, the NIST has numerous measurement programs assisting almost every area of commerce, as well as emerging programs for such new or rapidly changing fields as bioprocess engineering, biochemistry (i.e. protein characterization), advanced materials, fiber optics, electronics, and automated manufacturing. Only half of the NIST's funding for this activity comes from direct appropriations. The remaining is contract work supporting other agencies' measurement requirements in almost every technical field. The Committee is interested in assuring that the NIST is adequately funded to perform its responsi

bility and that the relevant agencies are able to transfer measurement research results to the public and private sectors.

With regard to the term "standards", there is frequently confusion over exactly what this word implies. Standards are developed by the NIST, other federal agencies, voluntary consensus organizations, and international organizations. The Committee has proposed the following general rule to the parliamentarian: if legislation involves new methods of measurement or the development of standards with scientific basis, it is then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Voluntary consensus standards organizations, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials, or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, support a peer review system which establishes a wide variety of standards without the involvement of the Federal Government.

Any Federal Government research programs to assist the development of new technical standards are clearly within the Comittee's jurisdiction. Most research is performed by the NIST and is directly related to the NIST's role in standardization. For example, NIST is continually improving the accuracy of existing measurement devices and standards such as temperature sensors. The NIST also spends a great amount of effort developing methods called protocols to permit equipment by one manufacturer to be used with equipment from another. In 1903, the problem was making all fire hoses fit all fire hydrants. Today these standardization problems are much more complex, such as developing the many levels of computer language required to make different manufacturers' robots talk to each other in an automated factory or to allow different brands of computers to exchange data or work together.

Such standardization programs are of legislative interest to the Committee to the extent that new knowledge or protocols are required to make a standardization program a success. Eventually, the government's research translates into standards issued by the voluntary consensus standards organizations. This research has been given much higher visibility in the current budgetary climate, since the need for new standards greatly exceeds the resources available to develop them. In addition, any legislation which impacts the programs at the NIST should be considered by the Committee because the addition of new authority at the NIST is actually a rearrangement of priorities; new programs, when resources are limited, invariably replace ongoing ones and it is the Committee's responsibility to set these priorities.

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is interested in assuring that the proper role of various federal agencies is considered in the process of developing new standards and measures, given the importance of the many emerging technologies and new understanding of our biosphere, it would appear that legislation is being introduced more frequently involving new standards, measurement, or measurement methods related to new technologies and phenomena which require both federal and non-federal involvement for development and promulgation.

3.5(k)—Hearing on Women, Minorities and the Disabled in Science and Technology

Background

The disproportionately small number of women, minorities, and disabled individuals in science and technology has long been a concern of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. In 1986, Congress called for the establishment of an interagency Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology in Section 8 of the National Science Foundation Authorization for Fiscal Year 1987 (P.L. 99-383) to examine the current status of Federal Government employment of these groups; coordinate existing efforts to increase participation of these groups in science and enginering; and to develop additional measures.

The scheduled release of the Task Force's "draft" interim report, Changing America: The New Face of Science and Engineering prompted the SRT Subcommittee to hold a hearing on June 28, 1988 to review the findings of the report. Two related reports, the Office of Technology Assessment's Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, and the American Council on Education's One-Third of a Nation, were also reviewed and discussed.

Summary of the Hearing

Witnesses at the hearing on June 28, 1988, included the authors of the reports and representatives of successful programs for women, minorities, and the disabled. All three groups noted the significant and increasing under-representation of women and minorities in scientific and engineering fields at a time when those groups account for a growing percentage of the population, including increasing federal support for pre-college education, federal scholarships and fellowships to attract top students to careers in science, engineering, and teaching, and targeting federal research grants and hiring to attract women, minorities and the disabled to science and engineering. Committee Publication Number 100-134. 3.5(1)-Hearing on the Privatization of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Background

During the 1980s, several A-76 reviews of the National Technical Information Service were conducted to determine whether part or all of the NTIS could be operated more economically in the private sector. Each of the reviews resulted in the conclusion that NTIS should continue as part of the government. A 1986 Department of Commerce analysis concluded that only minor adjustments to the operation of NTIS were warranted and recommended against substantial privatization on the grounds that it would not be cost effective and could jeopardize important government functions. In 1987 OMB decided to pursue a substitute contracting out procedure for NTIS known as the Federal Employee Direct Corporate Ownership Opportunity Plan (FED CO-OP) in lieu of the A-76 process, a formal Executive branch contracting procedure. A Request for Information was published in the Federal Register in December 1987;

a Bidders' Conference was held in January 1988 to further the Administration's announced intent to use a FED CO-OP plan to privatize NTIS; and a final Request for Proposals was scheduled to be issued by the end of February.

The plan had raised substantial concern in the Congress. Language banning the further contracting out of NTIS and a requirement that the Department of Commerce submit plans to the Congress for modernizing NTIS was included in H.R. 3, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and subsequently in H.R. 4848 which became P.L. 100-418.

Summary of Hearing

The hearing held February 24, 1988, focused on the legality and the appropriateness of the proposed FED CO-OP for NTIS. Witnesses included representatives from the Office of Technology Assessment; Public Citizens/Congress Watch; Special Library Association; National Federation of Federal Employees; and the National Academy of Public Administration. All opposed privatization. The testimony of Dr. Seidman, the National Academy of Public Administration witness, centered around the transformation of NTIS as a government corporation. The invited representatives from the Department of Commerce declined to testify on that date, and appeared instead at the National Bureau of Standards FY 1989 Authorization hearing held on March 15, 1988. Committee Publication Number 100-84.

3.5(m)-Hearing on Oversight of the Office of Science and

Background

Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was created by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, P.L. 94-282. The Director of OSTP, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, is charged with providing "within the Executive Office of the President, advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest levels of Government". Among other responsibilities, the Director is charged with assisting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the annual review and analysis of funding proposed for research and development in budgets of all Federal agencies and is charged with providing general leadership and coordination of the research and development programs of the Federal Government.

Since the establishment of OSTP, the budget for the Office has fluctuated tremendously, and personnel and other resources available to the Director have been limited. In the last four years, the Administration has been slow to reappoint a permanent Director; the position was in "acting" status for most of 1986. Further, during the 70's and 80's OSTP has been perceived as expending most of its resources on short-range analyses and assessments of mission-related research and development activities, rather than longer-range strategic planning and analyses for science and technology as mandated by the statute.

Although annual posture hearings have been held on the federal research and development budget with the OSTP Director as principal witness, no over-sight hearing on the mission and function of OSTP has previously been undertaken by the House. Therefore, a hearing was held on February 17, 1988 to explore the impact of OSTP activities on the health of American science and technology and to determine the extent to which OSTP has or has not been fulfilling the intent of national science and technology policy expressed in P.L. 94-282.

Summary of Hearing

Views were sought from former government officials, from academe, and from industry on the impact and effectiveness of OSTP and on possible ways and means for improving the functioning of the Office. Witnesses included the current OSTP Director and a panel of former directors; a panel of former heads of federal R&D agencies; and a panel of university and industry officials who have been closely involved with the issues surrounding science advice to the President.

Broad agreement emerged from the discussions that the resources available to OSTP were not commensurate with the range of responsibilities of the office. The witnesses were nearly unanimous in calling for higher staffing levels but with a smaller proportion of the staff composed of rotators from other agencies. The point was also made that the statute establishing OSTP is somewhat unrealistic in placing too much responsibility on OSTP for detailed coordination among R&D agencies, for detailed formulation of the federal R&D budget and for various recurring reports and studies. It was suggested that OSTP, in addition to the inevitable role of responding to the day-to-day issues that arise in the White House, should focus attention on indentifying and championing federal support for high payoff technologies.

The witnesses expressed considerable skepticism about alterations to the science advisory structure leading to a more effective OSTP. The personal relationship between the President and his science advisory and the importance the President places on obtaining advice from the science and technology community were judged to be the critical factors in determining the impact of OSTP. Nevertheless, several witnesses advocated elevating the status of the science advisor to cabinet level or to the level of special assistant to the President in order to enhance the odds of attracting an eminent scientist or engineer to the position. Committee Publication Number 100-106.

3.5(n)-Fire Safety in Multifamily Housing

The Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology has had a continuing interest in improving fire prevention and control through public education, training of firefighters, effective fire codes, and proper uses of materials, alarms and sprinklers in all buildings. The concern has grown out of the Subcommittee's jurisdiction over the U.S. Fire Administration, the Center for Fire Research and the National Fire Academy, al created in the Federal Fire and Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-498).