Stark Warning Issued on Advanced Technology Program

The warning was stark: “It is my intention to zero out this program,” said a key Member of Congress with direct control over funding for NIST’s Advanced Technology Program. With that, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee served notice that he wants to shut down this controversial program.

Rogers’ statement came yesterday during an appearance by Commerce Undersecretary for Technology Mary Good at an appropriations hearing on the Commerce Department’s science and technology programs. Good testified about the “relatively modest increase” in the FY 1998 request for NIST’s laboratory program, including the enhancement of semiconductor measurement efforts, and international standards. She also discussed the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Baldrige National Quality Award, an ongoing construction review of NIST’s laboratories, and the Advanced Technology Program, which, she said, “is an area where there are major issues.”

Rogers was to the point in his response: “I don’t understand NIST.” He criticized the administration’s last two requests for additional ATP funding. With controlled anger, Rogers charged that the administration had shifted ATP funding for new grants, with “no consultation with the committee” and Congress. “We won’t stand for that,” he said, outlining the history of protracted negotiations between the Administration and Congress last year on the future of ATP.

While Good explained that her understanding was that Budget Resolution negotiations had removed prohibitions on ATP funding, Rogers disagreed. “Do you have any understanding at all of what makes this committee mad?” he asked, adding, “I know precisely what I am going to do.” Rogers said that last year the House Science Committee had held “my feet to the fire,” about ATP’s future. Good said there had been a “major misunderstanding;" Rogers countered by describing congressional intent and added, “I can’t depend on what you say...this is the only agency I’ve got this problem with.” Rogers said the administration had “botched it ...screwed it up,” and wanted Good to supply the subcommittee with what NIST was legally obliged to pay on existing ATP commitments. With that, he declared, “It is my intention to zero out this program.”

Although subcommittee Democrats tried to ameliorate the situation, Ranking Democrat Alan Mollohan (D-WVA) said “the path is littered with obstacles,” and said that the administration would “have to take into account budget and policy realities.” Rep. David Skaggs (D-CO) described the impasse as an “unfortunate situation,” and then told Good that he was “troubled by the tradeoffs” that he thought might exist between funding NIST’s core laboratory program and ATP. Good assured him that the laboratories were being funded appropriately, and were not suffering because of ATP’s growth. She described the 40% increase in the lab budget since 1990 as an indication of the administration’s high priority for this NIST core program.

Skaggs’s concerns were sounded the day before by House Subcommittee on Technology Chairwoman Constance Morella (R-MD) at an authorization hearing on NIST. Morella, whose district includes the NIST main campus, said that the administration’s budget requests for ATP and its core laboratories program seemed “lopsided.” Morella, a strong supporter of NIST, said that “it’s very difficult to justify that percentage of increase” as she described the 22.5% increase the administration has requested for ATP. Morella was critical of the projected 2.5% requested increase for the labs in FY 1998, and the total 8% increase in this budget over the next five years (not adjusted for inflation), saying that it would result in a lower constant dollar budget. Good replied that “we will do our very best” for the outyears, but “will not comment on outyears...we can talk about 1999...the next time around.” Good said that she would like to see a stable ATP budget of $400 - $500 million per year at the end of five years (FY 1997 budget: $225 million.)

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) supported Morella, saying the ATP request “seems out of whack,” comparing it “to eating your seed corn,” adding that the “basic core functions would wither on the vine.” Ehlers said his “real concern is lack of growth for your basic core program.”