[Senate Report 106-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 758
106th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 106-382
_______________________________________________________________________
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1407
August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixth congress
second session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Ann H. Choiniere, General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
Calendar No. 758
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-382
======================================================================
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT
_______
August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1407]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1407) ``A Bill to authorize
appropriations for the Technology Administration of the
Department of Commerce for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003,
and for other purposes'', having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill, as reported, is to authorize
appropriations to the Technology Administration (TA) of the
Department of Commerce (DOC) for fiscal year (FY) 2001, FY
2002, and FY 2003 as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of consideration FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Under Secretary for 8.716 8.977 9.246
Technology............................
Teacher Science and Technology 0.750 0.773 0.796
Enhancement Institute.................
Experimental Program to Stimulate 3.000 3.000 3.000
Competitive Technologies Program......
Scientific and Technical Research and 337.508 356.071 375.655
Services..............................
Industrial Technology Services......... 271.015 275.421 264.960
Construction and Maintenance........... 35.879 36.955 38.064
--------------------------------
Total............................ 656.868 681.197 691.721
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Needs
Under the leadership of the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology, TA provides advice on technology policy, supports
technology development programs, and disseminates technology
information. The Under Secretary oversees the three major
components of the TA: (1) the Office of Technology Policy
(OTP), (2) the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and (3) the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). The mission of OTP is to evaluate, develop, and promote
policies and programs that facilitate private sector innovation
and U.S. industrial competitiveness. NIST (formerly the Bureau
of Standards) is, by far, the largest of the three TA
activities. NIST conducts in-house research and development as
well as standards activities in support of U.S. industry. In
addition, through its Industrial Technology Services (ITS)
account, NIST funds two external technology grant and
assistance programs: the Advanced Technology Program (ATP),
which provides grants to companies to undertake initial high
risk high-tech research to develop promising technologies with
economic potential (but does not support product development),
and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which
provides manufacturing assistance to small- and medium-sized
businesses through regional centers. NIST also manages the
Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, which is given to
U.S. companies that excel in quality achievement and total
quality management. NTIS is a self-financed agency that
collects and sells to the public technical information
generated by the U.S. government and foreign sources.
In recent years, of all the TA activities, the greatest
controversy has involved NIST's two grant programs--ATP and
MEP. Proponents of ATP argue that the program strengthens the
U.S. economy by providing U.S. companies with a critical
helping hand by funding peer-reviewed, high risk, yet
promising, commercially-relevant research ventures that private
capital sources would be unlikely to finance because of the
risk and unlikelihood of a quick return on investment. However,
opponents of ATP view the program as ``corporate welfare'' and
believe that the goal of increased U.S. competitiveness is
better achieved through a combination of deregulation, tax
reform, tort reform, and more vigorous enforcement of trade
agreements. MEP has been viewed by critics of NIST in a more
favorable light. Through its centers in each state and over 300
smaller local activities, MEP provides assistance to the
Nation's approximately 381,000 small- and medium-sized firms
seeking to modernize their plants. Proponents assert that this
is precisely the kind of assistance that these firms need
because it is difficult for owners and managers of small
companies to find high-quality, unbiased information, advice,
and assistance. In addition, many of these firms lag behind
their foreign competitors in technology and operations, leading
larger firms to look increasingly for offshore suppliers.
However, some believe that the MEP concept of using extension
agents to visit industries to identify and to address their
needs is not a cost-effective model and is particularly
inefficient in rural states where the agents must travel great
distances. Opponents also argue that the MEP makes insufficient
use of advanced computer networking to deliver needed technical
assistance to U.S. companies.
Legislative History
On February 7, 2000, the Administration submitted its FY 2001
budget request for TA to the Congress. On April 21, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held an
oversight hearing on TA's programs at which time testimony was
heard from Gary Bachula, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology and Raymond Kammer, Director, NIST.
On July 21, 1999, Senator Frist, Chairman of the
Subcommittee, introduced S. 1407, a bill to authorize
appropriations for TA for FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002.
On April 13, 2000, the Committee met in executive session
and, on a voice vote, ordered the bill, as amended, to be
reported.
Summary of Major Provisions
As reported, S. 1407 would authorize funding for TA for FY
2001, FY 2002, and FY 2003 and make several changes to the
programs of TA. Major provisions of S. 1407, as reported,
include:
1. Authorization of Appropriations. A total of $656.9 million
would be authorized for the TA for fiscal year (FY) 2001,
$681.2 million for FY 2002, and $691.7 million for FY 2003. The
authorized funding level for TA is allocated among its
activities as indicated in the chart under Purpose of the Bill.
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
Amendments. Substantial changes would be made to the manner in
which ATP is administered. Specifically, the participation of
large companies would be restricted to joint ventures or
partnerships only, and all competitions would be required to be
general and open to all applicants.
3. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technologies. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technologies would be transferred from OTP to NIST with an
annual authorization level of $3 million.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2000.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1407, the Technology
Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2001, 2002,
and 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley
(for federal costs) and Shelley Finalyson (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1407--Technology Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
2001, 2002, and 2003
Summary: S. 1407 would authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2001 through 2003 for various technology programs
administered by the Department of Commerce. Funds would be
authorized for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), for the office of the Under Secretary for
Technology, and for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Technologies (EPSCOT). The bill would authorize
several new initiatives at NIST, including a science and
technology training program for teachers, and an interagency
board concerned with global positioning systems. Other
provisions of the bill would modify existing programs, and
would authorize NIST to transfer title to tangible personal
property to recipients of funding from the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) under certain conditions. The bill also would
require NIST and office of the Under Secretary to submit
reports to the Congress on the status of the manufacturing
sector in the digital age and the activities of the national
laboratories.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 1407 would cost about $2 billion
over the 2001-2005 period. Provisions regarding the transfer of
title to personal property could affect direct spending;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
CBO estimates, however, that the impact on direct spending
would not be significant in any one year.
S. 1407 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and could benefit state and local governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1407 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370
(commerce and housing credit). For the purposes of this
estimate, CBO assumes that all authorized amounts will be
appropriated near the beginning of each fiscal year and that
outlays will follow the historical spending patterns for the
affected programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
-----------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \2\........................................ 642 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 648 420 210 76 33 11
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level......................................... 0 657 677 692 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 0 316 524 633 328 145
Spending Under S. 1407:
Authorization Level \2\..................................... 642 657 677 692 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 648 736 734 709 361 156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This bill could affect direct spending if NIST chose to transfer title to some of the personal property
acquired under ATP that otherwise would have been sold as surplus property under current law. Based on
information provided by NIST, however, CBO estimates that the potential loss in sale receipts would not be
significant in any one year.
\2\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for specified technology programs with the
Department of Commerce.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending and receipts.
Provisions in S. 1407 authorizing NIST to convey title to
personal property could reduce offsetting receipts (a form of
direct spending), but CBO estimates that any loss of receipts
would not be significant in any single year.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 1407 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA, but several sections of the bill would affect grant
programs that benefit state and local governments. The bill
would authorize appropriations totaling about $352 million for
the 2001-2003 period for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), a program jointly financed by the federal
government and state or local agencies. The MEP is a program
designed to enhance productivity and technological performance
in the United States and is made up of the State Technology
Extension Program (STEP) and the Manufacturing Extension
Centers Program (MECP). STEP provides technical assistance and
planning grants to states to develop or revitalize their
technology program. MECP involves cooperative agreements
between the federal government and nonprofit institutions that
are often funded by state or local development agencies or
universities.
S. 1407 also would authorize appropriations for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology. This
is a program to strengthen the technological competitiveness of
states that have historically received less federal research
and development funds than other states. These grants require
at least a 25-percent match and are available to consortia
including state and local governments. The bill would transfer
the program from the Under Secretary of Commerce to NIST and
authorize appropriations of $3 million annually for fiscal
years 2001 through 2003. Any costs to state or local
governments to participate in these technology programs would
be voluntary.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimated prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Hadley. Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Shelley Finlayson.
Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Wooster.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 1407, as reported, would reauthorize appropriations for
DOC's TA for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The TA conducts
measurements and standards activities in support of U.S.
industry and manages technology grant and assistance programs
to increase U.S. competitiveness. The Committee believes that
the bill will not subject any individuals or businesses
affected by the bill to any additional regulation.
economic impact
Providing for continual funding would allow NIST to continue
its support of U.S. industries by conducting its standards and
measurements setting functions. NIST's grants and assistance
programs would continue to assist U.S. businesses to be more
competitive in international markets and would continue to
benefit the general public through contributing to the economic
growth of the country from investments in new science and
technology ventures that otherwise would not have been
undertaken.
privacy
This legislation would not have an adverse impact on the
privacy of individuals.
paperwork
This legislation would not increase the paperwork requirement
for private individuals or businesses. The legislation would
require three reports to be submitted to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House
Committee on Science: (1) the Director of NIST would be
required to submit a report on the manufacturing sector; (2)
the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy would be required
to submit a report on the national laboratories; and (3) the
Director of NIST would be required to submit a report on
technical standards.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section would permit the reported bill to be cited as
the ``Technology Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal
Years 2001, 2002, and 2003.''
Section 2. Definitions
This section would provide the definitions of several key
terms used throughout the report bill.
Section 3. Authorization of appropriations for scientific and technical
research and development
Subsection (a) would authorize $338 million for Scientific
and Technical Research Services for FY 2001, $356 million for
FY 2002, and $376 million for FY 2002.
The Committee continues to recognize NIST's important and
legitimate role in promoting U.S. industrial competitiveness by
working with industry to develop and apply measurements,
standards, and technology. The basic research and standards
work at NIST is an important function.
The Committee continues to recognize the role of quality as
an integral part of today's business management practices. The
Committee commends NIST for its work in establishing the
Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award criteria, which is used by
thousands of organizations as a general performance and
business excellence model.
As standards develop that allow interoperability,
manufacturers and retailers can more closely integrate their
supply chains. A March 1999 NIST study estimates that lack of
interoperability costs the automotive supply chain $1 billion
per year. The majority of these costs are attributable to the
time and resources spent correcting and reformatting data files
that are not usable by those receiving the files. While a
general international Standard for the Exchange of Product
Model Data (STEP) exists to facilitate the exchange of these
data files, much more work needs to be done to apply that
standard to specific industries. This section of the reported
bill includes $4 million for FY 2001 for NIST to continue
cooperation with the automotive and aerospace industries into
the pilot stage and with other key manufacturing sectors on
implementing STEP.
The funds authorized in this section of the reported bill
also would include NIST's Minority Serving Initiative. This
important new initiative would allow NIST to foster
partnerships with these institutions which educate a
disproportionately large number of the nation's minority
scientists and engineers. It would also expand the post-
doctoral fellowship program, bringing more of these scientists
and engineers to work at NIST.
In Subsection (b), NIST would be authorized $36 million for
FY 2001, $37 million for FY 2002, and $38 million for FY 2003
for the Construction and Maintenance account in order to fund
needed new construction and renovations at NIST.
In Subsection (c), NIST would be provided $750,000 for FY
2001, $773,000 for FY 2002, and $796,000 for FY 2003 for the
Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute program.
The Committee is disappointed that the President's request did
not include funding for this program, which was established by
the Technology Administration Act of 1998. The Committee
believes that this program will greatly assist teachers in
better understanding the relationship between technology and
commerce. The need for human capital has been identified as a
major barrier to continual growth by the technology community,
more so than technology and finance.To ensure that American
industry continues to be the dominant player in the global economy,
NIST must do its part to ensure a readily available source of human
capital exists.
Section 4. Authorization for the Office of the Under Secretary for
Technology
Subsection (a) would authorize $8,716,000 for FY 2001,
$8,977,000 for FY 2002, and $9,246,000 for FY 2003 for the
activities of the Under Secretary for Technology and OTP.
Subsection (b) would authorize $590,000 for FY 2001, $608,000
for FY 2002, and $626,000 for FY 2003 of the funds in
Subsection (a) for the Office of Space Commercialization.
The Committee has steadfastly supported the Federal
investment in research and development. The products of that
investment, scientific and technical documents, are archived
and disseminated by NTIS. The Committee has not endorsed the
closure of NTIS, as proposed by the Secretary of Commerce. The
proposal submitted to the Committee by the Secretary is
incomplete and does not address several issues that were raised
during a hearing held by the Committee on October 21, 1999. The
Committee intends to review the status of the agency further
before making a final decision.
Section 5. Authorization of appropriation for industrial technology
services
This section would authorize $271.02 million for ITS for FY
2001, $275.42 million for FY 2002, and $264.96 for FY 2003. The
ITS account funds NIST's ATP and MEP. There would be authorized
to be appropriated for ATP $146.88 million for FY 2001, $151.28
million for FY 2002, and $155.82 million for FY 2003. There
would be authorized to be appropriated for the MEP program
$124.14 million for FY 2001, $119.14 million for FY 2002, and
$109.14 million for FY 2003.
The MEP FY 2001 funding level is $10 million above the
requested level and would allow accelerated implementation of
the e-commerce initiative for support of small manufacturing
firms. This $10 million would increase support for the small
manufacturers by more than 100 percent above the requested
level for a total of $19 million for FY 2001. The reported bill
provides a total of $15 million for FY 2002 and $5 million for
FY 2003 for this e-commerce initiative. The Committee believes
that accelerated funding over the next two years is very
important and necessary to ensure that the small manufacturers
remain competitive.
The FY 2001 funding level of $147 million for ATP is a 3
percent increase above the FY 2000 appropriated level. The
funding level for FY 2001 and FY 2002 also represents a 3
percent increase over the previous year. The Committee
continues to be concerned about ATP's failure to use $26
million in funds for new awards in FY 1999 and the program's
decision to de-obligate $28 million previously dedicated to
projects in FY 1999.
The Committee recognizes that a major element of the Nation's
transition to electronic commerce is the need to improve
manufacturing productivity by ensuring that electronic data can
be exchanged accurately and efficiently. Over the past two
years, representatives from several government agencies
(Departments of Energy, Defense, and Commerce and the National
Science Foundation) and many companies in the manufacturing
sector worked to develop roadmaps that address generic future
manufacturing infrastructure requirements. The resulting
documents, the Integrated Manufacturing Technology Roadmaps,
laid out common visions in the areas of information systems for
manufacturing enterprises, modeling and simulation,
manufacturing processes and equipment, and technologies for
enterprise integration. Integrated Manufacturing Technology
Initiative is the name given to the implementation of these
roadmaps. The Committee supports the budget request of $1
million to support the federal government role in this public-
private partnership and the establishment of a convening
organization that will use the Integrated Manufacturing
Technology Roadmaps as its guide.
Section 6. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
amendments
Section 6 of the reported bill would make several amendments
to the NIST Act.
Subsection (a) would amend the NIST Act, making changes to
the process by which ATP operates. Specifically under
subsection (a), paragraph (1) would require the reviewers, as
part of the current technical merit review process, to make a
determination that the research projects in question would not
go forward in a timely manner without Federal assistance. In
addition, each program applicant would be required to certify
that an unsuccessful attempt has been made to secure private
market funding for the research project involved. In providing
the certification, each applicant would be required to include
a written narrative description of the efforts made to secure
the funding. Paragraph (1) also would restrict a large
business' participation to joint ventures only, and the joint
ventures would have to include one or more small businesses.
In paragraph (2), the term ``large business'' would be
defined as a business with gross annual revenues greater than
$2.5 billion. A small business would be defined in accordance
with section 3(a)(1) of the Small Business Act. A medium
business would be a business that is neither a small business
nor a large business.
Paragraph (3) would make a technical correction to the Act to
redesignate subsection (j) of the existing code as subsection
(m).
Paragraph (4) would authorize the Director to grant an
extension beyond the five year deadline for completing a
project provided that the extension would result in no
additional costs to the Federal government and is in the
Federal government's interest. Paragraph (4) also would allow
the Secretary to vest title to tangible personal property in
ATP grant recipients as long as (a) the property is purchased
as part of the ATP grant, and (b) the Secretary determines that
the vesting furthers the objectives of NIST. The vesting made
under this subsection would be made only if subject to the
limitations prescribed by the Secretary, and only if vesting
causes no additional cost to the Federal government.
Subsection (b) would amend the NIST Act provisions which
govern ATP to allow non-industry joint venture participants
such as universities and non-profits participating as ATP
awardees and subawardees the option of retaining title to the
intellectual property generated under ATP programs where the
non-government parties to the ATP project agree it will serve
the interests of the participants in the project. This change
will provide a greater opportunity for industry to work
together with universities and other nonprofit organizations.
The amendment language removes anyrestriction requiring patent
title to be held by nonprofit companies and permits the participants to
agree among themselves as to where patent title will vest. The
amendment also provides a preemption of the requirements of chapter 18
of title 35 of the U.S. Code as required by that chapter. It furthers
stipulates that these provisions are not retroactive. Subsection (b) of
the reported bill would eliminate all focus program competitions.
Specifically, this subsection would require all awards to be based on
general open competitions.
Section 7. Reports
Subsection (a) would require the Director, within six months
after enactment, to submit a report to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science on the manufacturing
sector addressing such issues as an expanded definition of and
the role of manufacturing in the digital age; necessary
revisions to existing federal programs to reflect requirements
imposed by the knowledge-based economy; and needs of small
businesses for technical assistance.
Subsection (b) would require the Assistant Secretary for
Technology Policy, within nine months after enactment, to
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Science on whether the laboratories have clearly defined and
focused missions; barriers to maintaining competitive centers
of excellence; laboratory collaborations; strengthening
laboratories; and any recommendations to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of the national laboratories.
Subsection (c) would require the Director, in consultation
with the U.S. Trade Representative Office and other appropriate
agencies, to submit a report to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science, within six months of
enactment, on the role and impact of international technical
standards on global commerce and international trade; the role
of national standards in international commerce and trade
policies; the timeliness of domestic and international process
and its impact on development of new markets and new
technologies; market, industry, and technology inputs to the
standards process; access in representation to the domestic and
international standards process; and any recommendation for
changes to the domestic standards process.
Section 8. Authorization of interagency support for global positioning
system
This section would authorize interagency funds and other
forms of support for the activities of the Interagency Global
Positioning System Executive Board (IGEB) including the
Executive Secretariat, which is housed within the Department of
Commerce. This section does not authorize any additional funds
to any agency but does exempt the IGEB from the general
legislative ban on multi-agency funding of executive boards.
Due to the dual military and civilian nature of the Global
Positioning System (GPS), the Committee supports the
involvement of civilian agencies in the management of the GPS.
Furthermore, because of the jointly held responsibilities of
the IGEB, which is co-chaired by the Departments of Defense and
Transportation and includes the Departments of Commerce, State,
Agriculture, Justice, and Interior as well as the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Committee supports allowing multi-agency contributions to
fund the activities of the IGEB, including the operations of
the Executive Secretariat.
Section 9. Transfer of EPSCoT to NIST
Subsection (a) would transfer the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) from OTP to NIST. The
Committee is disappointed that the Administration did not
include funding for the program as part of the FY 2001 budget
request.
Subsection (b) would authorize $3 million for FY 2001, $3
million for FY 2002, and $3 million for FY 2003 for EPSCoT.
Consistent with the Technology Administration Act of 1998,
the Committee encourages the Director to ensure that states are
working toward established achievement criteria for
participating in the program. It is hoped that as more states
meet this criteria, their need to participate in the program
may be eliminated.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT
SEC. 28. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. [15 U.S.C. 278N]
(a) There is established in the Institute an Advanced
Technology Program (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Program'') for the purpose of assisting United States
businesses in creating and applying the generic technology and
research results necessary to--
(1) commercialize significant new scientific
discoveries and technologies rapidly; and
(2) refine manufacturing technologies.
The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall assure that
the Program focuses on improving the competitive position of
the United States and its businesses, gives preference to
discoveries and to technologies that have great economic
potential, and avoids providing undue advantage to specific
companies. In operating the Program, the Secretary and Director
shall, as appropriate, be guided by the findings and
recommendations of the Biennial National Critical Technology
Reports prepared pursuant to section 603 of the National
Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act
of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6683).
(b) Under the Program established in subsection (a), and
consistent with the mission and policies of the Institute, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, and subject to
subsections (c) and (d), may--
(1) aid industry-led United States joint research and
development ventures (hereafter in this section
referred to as ``joint ventures'' (which may also
include universities and independent research
organizations), including those involving collaborative
technology demonstration projects which develop and
test prototype equipment and processes, through--
(A) provision of organizational and technical
advice; and
(B) participation in such joint ventures by
means of grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts, if the Secretary, acting through the
Director, determines participation to be
appropriate, which may include (i) partial
start-up funding, (ii) provision of a minority
share of the cost of such joint ventures for up
to 5 years, and (iii) making available
equipment, facilities, and personnel, provided
that emphasis is placed on areas where the
Institute has scientific or technological
expertise, on solving generic problems of
specific industries, and on making those
industries more competitive in world markets;
(2) provide grants to and enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements with United States businesses
(especially small businesses), provided that emphasis
is placed on applying the Institute's research,
research techniques, and expertise to those
organizations' research programs;
(3) involve the Federal laboratories in the Program,
where appropriate, using among other authorities the
cooperative research and development agreements
provided for under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980; and
(4) carry out, in a manner consistent with the
provisions of this section, such other cooperative
research activities with joint ventures as may be
authorized by law or assigned to the Program by the
Secretary.
(c) The Secretary, acting through the Director, is authorized
to take all actions necessary and appropriate to establish and
operate the Program, including--
(1) publishing in the Federal Register draft criteria
and, no later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this section, following a public comment
period, final criteria, for the selection of recipients
of assistance under subsection (b)(1) and (2);
(2) monitoring how technologies developed in its
research program are used, and reporting annually to
the Congress on the extent of any overseas transfer of
these technologies;
(3) establishing procedures regarding financial
reporting and auditing to ensure that contracts and
awards are used for the purposes specified in this
section, are in accordance with sound accounting
practices, and are not funding existing or planned
research programs that would be conducted in the same
time period in the absence of financial assistance
under the Program;
(4) assuring that the advice of the Committee
established under section 10 is considered routinely in
carrying out the responsibilities of the Institute; and
(5) providing for appropriate dissemination of
Program research results.
(d) When entering into contracts or making awards under
subsection (b), the following shall apply:
(1)(A) No contract or award may be made until the
research project in question has been subject to a
merit review, and has, in the opinion of the reviewers
appointed by the Director and the Secretary, acting
through the Director, been shown to have scientific and
technical merit and be of a nature and scope that would
not be pursued in a timely manner without Federal
assistance.
(B) Each applicant for a contract or award under the
Program shall certify that the applicant has made an
effort to secure private market funding for the
research project involved. That certification shall
include a written narrative description of the efforts
made by the applicant to secure that funding.
(2) In the case of joint ventures, the Program shall
not make an award unless the award will facilitate the
formation of a joint venture or the initiation of a new
research and development project by an existing joint
venture.
(3) No Federal contract or cooperative agreement
under subsection (b)(2) shall exceed $2,000,000 over 3
years, or be for more than 3 years unless a full and
complete explanation of such proposed award, including
reasons for exceeding these limits, is submitted in
writing by the Secretary to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the
House of Representatives. The proposed contract or
cooperative agreement may be executed only after 30
calendar days on which both Houses of Congress are in
session have elapsed since such submission. Federal
funds made available under subsection (b)(2) shall be
used only for direct costs and not for indirect costs,
profits, or management fees of the contractor.
(4) In determining whether to make an award to a
particular joint venture, the Program shall consider
whether the members of the joint venture have made
provisions for the appropriate participation of small
United States businesses in such joint venture.
(5) Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, shall
not apply to the following information obtained by the
Federal Government on a confidential basis in
connection with the activities of any business or any
joint venture receiving funding under the Program--
(A) information on the business operation of
any member of the business or joint venture;
and
(B) trade secrets possessed by any business
or any member of the joint venture.
(6) Intellectual property owned and developed by any
business or joint venture receiving funding or by any
member of such a joint venture may not be disclosed by
any officer or employee of the Federal Government
except in accordance with a written agreement between
the owner or developer and the Program.
(7) If a business or joint venture fails before the
completion of the period for which a contract or award
has been made,after all allowable costs have been paid
and appropriate audits conducted, the unspent balance of the Federal
funds shall be returned by the recipient to the Program.
(8) Upon dissolution of any joint venture or at the
time otherwise agreed upon, the Federal Government
shall be entitled to a share of the residual assets of
the joint venture proportional to the Federal share of
the costs of the joint venture as determined by
independent audit.
(9) A company shall be eligible to receive financial
assistance under this section only if--
(A) the Secretary finds that the company's
participation in the Program would be in the
economic interest of the United States, as
evidenced by investments in the United States
in research, development, and manufacturing
(including, for example, the manufacture of
major components or subassemblies in the United
States); significant contributions to
employment in the United States; and agreement
with respect to any technology arising from
assistance provided under this section to
promote the manufacture within the United
States of products resulting from that
technology (taking into account the goals of
promoting the competitiveness of United States
industry), and to procure parts and materials
from competitive suppliers; and
(B) either--
(i) the company is a United States-
owned company; or
(ii) the Secretary finds that the
company is incorporated in the United
States and has a parent company which
is incorporated in a country which
affords to United States-owned
companies opportunities, comparable to
those afforded to any other company, to
participate in any joint venture
similar to those authorized under this
Act affords to United States-owned
companies local investment
opportunities comparable to those
afforded to any other company; and
affords adequate and effective
protection for the intellectual
property rights of United States-owned
companies.
(10) Grants, contracts, and cooperative assignments
under this section shall be designed to support
projects which are high risk and which have the
potential for eventual substantial widespread
commercial application. In order to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this section,
a research and development entity shall demonstrate to
the Secretary the requisite ability in research and
technology development and management in the project
area in which the grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement is being sought.
(11)(A) Title to any intellectual property arising
from assistance provided under this section shall vest
in a company or companies incorporated in the United
[States.] States or any other university or nonprofit
awardee or subawardee (as those terms are defined by
the Secretary) receiving financial assistance under
this section, as agreed by the parties, notwithstanding
the requirements of chapter 18 of title 35, United
States Code. The United States may reserve a
nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable paid-up
license, to have practiced for or on behalf of the
United States, in connection with any such intellectual
property, but shall not, in the exercise of such
license, publicly disclose proprietary information
related to the license. Title to any such intellectual
property shall not be transferred or passed, except to
a company incorporated in the United States, until the
expiration of the first patent obtained in connection
with such intellectual property.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``intellectual property'' means an invention patentable
under title 35, United States Code, or any patent on
such an invention.
(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
prohibit the licensing to any company of intellectual
property rights arising from assistance provided under
this section.
(12) A large business may participate in a research
project that is the subject of a contract or award
under paragraph (3) only as a member of a joint venture
that includes 1 or more small businesses as members.
(e) The Secretary may, within 30 days after notice to
Congress, suspend a company or joint venture from continued
assistance under this section if the Secretary determines that
the company, the country of incorporation of the company or a
parent company, or the joint venture has failed to satisfy any
of the criteria set forth in subsection (d)(9), and that it is
in the national interest of the United States to do so.
(f) When reviewing private sector requests for awards under
the Program, and when monitoring the progress of assisted
research projects, the Secretary and the Director shall, as
appropriate, coordinate with the Secretary of Defense and other
senior Federal officials to ensure cooperation and coordination
in Federal technology programs and to avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort. The Secretary and the Director are
authorized to work with the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, the Secretary of Defense, and other
appropriate Federal officials to form interagency working
groups or special project offices to coordinate Federal
technology activities.
(g) In order to analyze the need for the value of joint
ventures and other research projects in specific technical
fields, to evaluate any proposal made by a joint venture or
company requesting the Secretary's assistance, or to monitor
the progress of any joint venture or any company research
project which receives Federal funds under the Program, the
Secretary, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, and
the Director may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
meet with such industry sources as they consider useful and
appropriate.
(h) Up to 10 percent of the funds appropriated for carrying
out this section may be used for standards development and
technical activities by the Institute in support of the
purposes of this section.
(i) In addition to such sums as may be authorized and
appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the
Program, the Secretary and Director also may accept funds from
other Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of
providing Federal funds to support awards under the Program.
Any Program awardwhich is supported with funds which originally
came from other Federal departments and agencies shall be selected and
carried out according to the provisions of this section.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B) and subsection
(d)(3), the Director may grant an extension beyond the
applicable deadline specified in subsection (b)(1)(B) or (d)(3)
for a joint venture or single applicant recipient of assistance
to expend Federal funds to complete the project assisted with
that assistance, if that extension--
(1) is granted with no additional cost to the Federal
Government; and
(2) is in the interest of the Federal Government.
(k)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Director, may vest
title to tangible personal property in any recipient of
financial assistance under this section if--
(A) the property is purchased with funds provided
under this section; and
(B) the Secretary, acting through the Director,
determines that the vesting of such property furthers
the objectives of the Institute.
(2) Vesting under this subsection shall--
(A) be subject to such limitations as are prescribed
by the Secretary, acting through the Director; and
(B) be made without further obligation to the United
States Government.
In carrying out this section, the Secretary, acting through the
Director, shall ensure that the requirements of Circular No. A-
110 issued by the Office of Management and Budget are met with
respect to the valuation of cost-share items used by
participants in the Program.
(l) Awards Based on Competition.--All amounts appropriated
for grants under subsection (b) for fiscal years beginning
after the date of enactment of the Technology Administration
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002 shall
be used for grants awarded on the basis of general open
competition.
[(j)] (m) As used in this section--
(1) the term ``joint venture'' means any group of
activities, including attempting to make, making, or
performing a contract, by two or more persons for the
purpose of--
(A) theoretical analysis, experimentation, or
systematic study of phenomena or observable
facts;
(B) the development or testing of basic
engineering techniques;
(C) the extension of investigative finding or
theory of a scientific or technical nature into
practical application for experimental and
demonstration purposes, including the
experimental production and testing of models,
prototypes, equipment, materials, and
processes;
(D) the collection, exchange, and analysis of
research information;
(E) the production of any product, process,
or service; or
(F) any combination of the purposes specified
in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E),
and may include the establishment and operation
of facilities for the conducting of research,
the conducting of such venture on a protected
and proprietary basis, and the prosecuting of
applications for patents and the granting of
licenses for the results of such venture; [and]
(2) the term ``large business'' means a business
that--
(A) is not a small business; and
(B) has gross annual revenues in an amount
greater than $2,500,000,000;
(3) the term ``medium business'' means a business
that--
(A) is not a small business; and
(B) has gross annual revenues in an amount
less than or equal to $2,500,000,000;
(4) the term ``small business'' means a small
business concern, as described in section 3(a)(1) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)); and
[(2)] (5) the term ``United States-owned company''
means a company that has majority ownership or control
by individuals who are citizens of the United States.
STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980
SEC. 5. COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. [15 U.S.C. 3704]
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department of
Commerce a Technology Administration, which shall operate in
accordance with the provisions, findings, and purposes of this
Act. The Technology Administration shall include--
(1) the National Institute of Standards and
Technology;
(2) the National Technical Information Service; and
(3) a policy analysis office, which shall be known as
the Office of Technology Policy.
(b) Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary.--The President
shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to the extent provided for in appropriations Acts--
(1) an Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology,
who shall be compensated at the rate provided for level
III of the Executive Schedule in section 5314 of title
5, United States Code; and
(2) an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology
Policy, who shall serve as policy analyst for the Under
Secretary.
(c) Duties.--The Secretary, through the Under Secretary, as
appropriate, shall--
(1) manage the Technology Administration and
supervise its agencies, programs, and activities;
(2) conduct technology policy analyses to improve
United States industrial productivity, technology, and
innovation, and cooperate with United States industry
in the improvement of its productivity, technology, and
ability to compete successfully in world markets;
(3) carry out any functions formerly assigned to the
Office of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation;
(4) assist in the implementation of the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975;
(5) determine the relationships of technological
developments and international technology transfers to
the output, employment, productivity, and world trade
performance of United States and foreign industrial
sectors;
(6) determine the influence of economic, labor and
other conditions, industrial structure and management,
and government policies on technological developments
in particular industrial sectors worldwide;
(7) identify technological needs, problems, and
opportunities within and across industrial sectors
that, if addressed, could make a significant
contribution to the economy of the United States;
(8) assess whether the capital, technical and other
resources being allocated to domestic industrial
sectors which are likely to generate new technologies
are adequate to meet private and social demands for
goods and services and to promote productivity and
economic growth;
(9) propose and support studies and policy
experiments, in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, to determine the effectiveness of measures
with the potential of advancing United States
technological innovation;
(10) provide that cooperative efforts to stimulate
industrial innovation be undertaken between the Under
Secretary and other officials in the Department of
Commerce responsible for such areas as trade and
economic assistance;
(11) encourage and assist the creation of centers and
other joint initiatives by State of [or] local
governments, regional organizations, private
businesses, institutions of higher education, nonprofit
organizations, or Federal laboratories to encourage
technology transfer, to stimulate innovation, and to
promote an appropriate climate for investment in
technology-related industries;
(12) propose and encourage cooperative research
involving appropriate Federal entities, State or local
governments, regional organizations, colleges or
universities, nonprofit organizations, or private
industry to promote the common use of resources, to
improve training programs and curricula, to stimulate
interest in high technology careers, and to encourage
the effective dissemination of technology skills within
the wider community;
(13) serve as a focal point for discussions among
United States companies on topics of interest to
industry and labor, including discussions regarding
manufacturing and discussions regarding emerging
technologies;
(14) consider government measures with the potential
of advancing United States technological innovation and
exploiting innovations of foreign origin; and
(15) publish the results of studies and policy
experiments.
(d) Japanese Technical Literature.--
(1) In addition to the duties specified in subsection
(c), the Secretary and the Under Secretary shall
establish, and through the National Technical
Information Service and with the cooperation of such
other offices within the Department of Commerce as the
Secretary considers appropriate, maintain a program
(including an office in Japan) which shall, on a
continuing basis--
(A) monitor Japanese technical activities and
developments;
(B) consult with businesses, professional
societies, and libraries in the United States
regarding their needs for information on
Japanese developments in technology and
engineering;
(C) acquire and translate selected Japanese
technical reports and documents that may be of
value to agencies and departments of the
Federal Government, and to businesses and
researchers in the United States; and
(D) coordinate with other agencies and
departments of the Federal Government to
identify significant gaps and avoid duplication
in efforts by the Federal Government to
acquire, translate, index, and disseminate
Japanese technical information. Activities
undertaken pursuant to subparagraph (C) of this
paragraph shall only be performed on a cost-
reimbursable basis. Translations referred to in
such subparagraph shall be performed only to
the extent that they are not otherwise
available from sources within the private
sector in the United States.
(2) Beginning in 1986, the Secretary shall prepare
annual reports regarding important Japanese scientific
discoveries and technical innovations in such areas as
computers, semiconductors, biotechnology, and robotics
and manufacturing. In preparing such reports, the
Secretary shall consult with professional societies and
businesses in the United States. The Secretary may, to
the extent provided in advance by appropriation Acts,
contract with private organizations to acquire and
translate Japanese scientific and technical information
relevant to the preparation of such reports.
(3) The Secretary also shall encourage professional
societies and private businesses in the United States
to increase their efforts to acquire, screen,
translate, and disseminate Japanese technical
literature.
(4) In addition, the Secretary shall compile,
publish, and disseminate an annual directory which
lists--
(A) all programs and services in the United
States that collect, abstract, translate, and
distribute Japanese scientific and technical
information; and
(B) all translations of Japanese technical
documents performed by agencies and departments
of the Federal Government in the preceding 12
months that are available to the public.
(5) The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress,
within 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Japanese Technical Literature Act of 1986, a report on
the activities of the Federal Government to collect,
abstract, translate, and distribute declassified
Japanese scientific and technical information.
(e) [Omitted.]
(f) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, [acting through the
Under Secretary,] acting through the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, shall establish for fiscal
year 1999 a program to be known as the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (referred
to in this subsection as the ``program''). The purpose
of the program shall be to strengthen the technological
competitiveness of those States that have historically
received less Federal research and development funds
than those received by a majority of the States.
(2) Arrangements.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary, [acting through the Under Secretary,] acting
through the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, shall--
(A) enter into such arrangements as may be
necessary to provide for the coordination of
the program through the State committees
established under the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research of the National
Science Foundation; and
(B) cooperate with--
(i) any State science and technology
council established under the program
under subparagraph (A); and
(ii) representatives of small
business firms and other appropriate
technology-based businesses.
(3) Grants and cooperative agreements.--In carrying
out the program, the Secretary, [acting through the
Under Secretary,] acting through the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, may make grants or enter
into cooperative agreements to provide for--
(A) technology research and development;
(B) technology transfer from university
research;
(C) technology deployment and diffusion; and
(D) the strengthening of technological
capabilities through consortia comprised of--
(i) technology-based small business
firms;
(ii) industries and emerging
companies;
(iii) universities; and
(iv) State and local development
agencies and entities.
(4) Requirements for making awards.--
(A) In general.--In making awards under this
subsection, the Secretary, [acting through the
Under Secretary,] acting through the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, shall
ensure that the awards are awarded on a
competitive basis that includes a review of the
merits of the activities that are the subject
of the award.
(B) Matching requirement.--The non-Federal
share of the activities (other than planning
activities) carried out under an award under
this subsection shall be not less than 25
percent of the cost of those activities.
(5) Criteria for states.--The Secretary, [acting
through the Under Secretary,] acting through the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall
establish criteria for achievement by each State that
participates in the program. Upon the achievement of
all such criteria, a State shall cease to be eligible
to participate in the program.
(6) Coordination.--To the extent practicable, in
carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, [acting
through the Under Secretary,] acting through the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall
coordinate the program with other programs of the
Department of Commerce.
(7) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of the Technology
Administration Act of 1998, the Under Secretary
shall prepare and submit a report that meets
the requirements of this paragraph to the
Secretary. Upon receipt of the report, the
Secretary shall transmit a copy of the report
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee
on Science of the House of Representatives.
(B) Requirements for report.--The report
prepared under this paragraph shall contain
with respect to the program--
(i) a description of the structure
and procedures of the program;
(ii) a management plan for the
program;
(iii) a description of the merit-
based review process to be used in the
program;
(iv) milestones for the evaluation of
activities to be assisted under the
program in fiscal year 1999;
(v) an assessment of the eligibility
of each State that participates in the
Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research of the National
Science Foundation to participate in
the program under this subsection; and
(vi) the evaluation criteria with
respect to which the overall management
and effectiveness of the program will
be evaluated.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR HOLLINGS
advanced technology program
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is an important
investment in American economic competitiveness. It supports
American industry's own efforts to develop new cutting-edge,
next-generation technologies--technologies that will create the
new industries and jobs of the 21st century. However, the ATP
does not fund the development of commercial products. Instead,
it provides matching funds to both individual companies and
joint ventures for ``pre-product'' research on these high-risk,
potentially high-payoff technologies. These technologies
include promising new ideas in manufacturing, advanced
electronics, and new materials.
Why do we need the ATP? The answer is simple: to keep America
competitive and to create jobs. Long-term technology has become
the key to future U.S. prosperity at precisely the time that
global competition, downsizing, and shareholder pressures are
forcing American companies to focus scarce research dollars on
short-term projects. The Commerce Department estimates that
these market pressures compel companies to spend up to 90
percent of their research funding on projects that will pay off
in one to five years. As a result, U.S. companies, small and
large, have serious trouble funding long-term, next-generation
technologies that can facilitate the building of new industries
but will not pay for ten to fifteen years. Moreover, the U.S.
Government, historically, has supported long-term research in
only a few key sectors--an approach very different from our
foreign competitors.
The ATP's sole aim is to develop new basic technologies that
would not be pursued soon or at all because of technical risks
and other obstacles that discourage private-sector investment.
The ATP does not support product development and is modeled on
similar Federal research programs that have long helped a few
sectors such as agriculture, the aircraft industry, and energy
technology. The program particularly helps small technology
companies. To date, the ATP has made 468 cost-sharing awards,
involving 1,067 companies and research partners in 43 states.
Although ATP competitions have been in existence for only ten
years, already a real difference can be seen from the early
awards that have been completed. A March 1999 study found that
future returns from just three of the completed ATP projects--
improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost
of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material
for prosthesis devices--would pay for all projects funded to
date by the ATP. Measurement and evaluation have been part of
the ATP since its beginning. The benefits of the program are
well-documented through individual case studies; the
Secretary's 1997 review; the February 1998 Development,
Commercialization, and Diffusion Study; and the March 1999
review of the Performance of Completed Projects. What these
analyses show time and time again is that the ATP is
stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of
high-risk technologies--and paying off for the nation.
In FY 2000, total program funding for the ATP is $201.3
million which will support $50.7 million in new awards. The
reported bill, on the other hand, authorizes $146.9 million in
FY 2001 for the ATP. A total program at this level would
drastically constrict funding for new ATP awards to
approximately $16.4 million in FY 2001.
New awards are the lifeblood of the program. This year's
competition brought in 417 proposals from industry, totaling
nearly $900 million in requested ATP funding with an industry
cost-share of over $681 million. Only $50.7 million was
available for new awards. These proposals include 545
participants (not including subcontractors) from industry,
academia and other research organizations. In addition, the ATP
staff reviewed 271 pre-proposals prior to the competition
deadline. Numbers this large clearly demonstrate significant
interest on the part of industry.
Fluctuations in funding would send a message to industry that
the future of the ATP is once again uncertain. This will halt
progress made in encouraging industry to identify forward-
looking, risk-sharing R&D of new enabling technologies. On-
again, off-again first-year funding availability for ATP plays
into the hands of those who argue that the Federal government
is an unreliable partner over the long term.
As industry continues to focus more of its R&D on near term
product development, there will be fewer sources of support for
the type of fundamental and enabling technology R&D that ATP
cost-shares. Industry is approaching the ATP to co-fund truly
revolutionary research, ranging from tissue engineering to
advanced learning technologies. These are new technical areas
that are becoming increasingly important to the U.S. economy
and the quality of life of American citizens.
manufacturing extension partnership
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) supports a
network of locally-run centers which provide technical advice
and consulting to small manufacturing companies in all fifty
states and Puerto Rico. Many of these firms lag behind foreign
competitors in technology and operations, leading larger
American firms to look increasingly for offshore suppliers. One
of the chief challenges facing small- and medium-sized
manufacturers is adapting and using electronic commerce
technologies to do business with larger firms.
The reported bill authorizes $124.2 million in FY 2001,
$119.2 million in 2002, and $109.2 million in FY 2003 for MEP.
The evidence is clear, however, that these proposed funding
levels are unrealistic in the out years. The increased funding
in FY 2001 would allow the program to fund more field agents at
the Centers and reach more small- and medium-sized
manufacturers. In addition, MEP could focus on the challenge of
electronic commerce by developing more technical capacity and
new services to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers use
new technology to compete and win new business. The reported
bill assumes that one year of intense focus on electronic
commerce will be sufficient to keep small manufacturers
competitive. I disagree. MEP will need to continue this
effort--with at least level funding--in order to reach more
companies and to help them use emerging technologies.