Interesting People mailing list archives
Senate Science Subcommittee Considers NIST Technology Programs
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 11:39:14 -0500
Senate Science Subcommittee Considers NIST Technology Programs FYI No. 18, February 3, 1995 "I continue to believe that programs like ATP are headed in the right direction." --Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), subcommittee chairman In the debate over how to pay for the Republicans' "Contract With America," one program that has been suggested for elimination is NIST's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) (see FYI #163, 1994). The program, which received almost $400 million in FY95, awards matching funds on a competitive basis to help industries develop long-term, high-risk technologies. Although ATP was initiated under the Bush Administration, some Republicans charge that it constitutes "industrial policy." On January 31, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space reviewed the ATP and other Department of Commerce science and technology programs. Subcommittee members of both parties supported ATP's efforts to help American businesses compete internationally. Subcommittee chairman Conrad Burns (R-MT) warned that "there is a fine line between industrial policy and lending a helping hand," but said he supports NIST's programs. He expressed concern, though, over ATP's proposed rate of growth and rural states' ability to participate. Full committee chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD) added that any strategy to improve the nation's economic competitiveness must also include tax, antitrust, and product liability reforms. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said he "thought this battle was over" and a "strong bipartisan consensus had been reached" on programs such as ATP. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown testified that "the marketplace alone does not invest sufficiently" in long-term, broad, basic technologies. He attributed this to increased economic competition and faster product cycles. He repeated emphatically that ATP does not provide taxpayer money for product development, but for risky pre-competitive technologies that companies and venture capitalists would not invest in. Asked by Burns whether companies were reducing long-term R&D because they expected government support, Brown pointed to the small size of the ATP program versus the large number of companies cutting their research budgets. When Burns raised the common criticism that federal funding of industry picks "winners and losers," Brown responded that the funding priorities were industry-driven. In the context of cutting the deficit, Brown stated that while his department had made significant cuts in recent years, programs like ATP had been made a priority even at the expense of other Commerce programs. Brown was followed by Commerce Undersecretary for Technology Policy Mary Good, and NIST Director Arati Prabhakar. Burns raised the issue of FY96 funding by asking the effect of a flat fiscal 1996 budget for ATP. In reply, Good exclaimed, "It's better than elimination!" She believed the program would be most useful if it grew, as planned, to "a full-scale national program," but added that it should not expand forever. Burns closed by stating that if we "don't live up to our responsibility for taking care of our grandchildren [by investing in the future], then we have been remiss. . ." ############### Public Information Division American Institute of Physics Contact: Audrey T. Leath fyi () aip org (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
Current thread:
- Senate Science Subcommittee Considers NIST Technology Programs David Farber (Feb 06)