Dear ATP Participant:

We have received many inquiries from ATP participants in light of current debate about the program's existence. Let me update you briefly on the budget process for FY 1996, which began October 1, 1995.

The budget process is a complicated -- and lengthy -- one, involving separate actions by both the House and Senate to pass: o a budget resolution agreeing on an overall federal budget and providing general guidance to committees, o authorizations, essentially setting ceilings for particular programs and providing specific guidance, and o appropriations, providing actual funding for individual programs. Moreover, no authorization nor appropriation can become law unless it is agreed to by the President or passed over his veto by two-thirds of the House and Senate.

Both the House and Senate passed budget resolutions that would eliminate the ATP; these are not, however, binding on their committees.

The appropriations process is further along, but with a long way to go. The House Appropriations Committee provided no funding for the ATP in FY 1996 as part of its actions on funding for the Commerce Department. The full House passed the bill on July 26, 1995. The House bill contains language which would restrict our ability to make new awards this year. You should know that the vote to include this language in the bill was very close -- showing a sign of increasing support for the ATP among many members. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee reported a bill which authorized appropriations for the ATP for FY 96-98. The Senate passed the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations on September 29, 1995. It is expected that a conference committee will be conducted later this month to resolve any differences.

To make the picture fuzzier, separate proposals now being considered in both the House and Senate propose to dismantle the entire Commerce Department -- and call specifically for the elimination of the ATP. Action on these proposals (usually referred to as the "Chrysler-Abraham" bills, named for their congressional lead sponsors) is ongoing in both the House and Senate but neither has been passed.

Balancing the situation, the White House has voiced its strong support for the ATP. President Clinton specifically retained ATP funding -- and growth -- in his alternative balanced budget proposal and he has spoken out publicly in favor of the ATP in recent meetings. More recently, Alice Rivlin, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, sent a "veto threat" letter to House leaders strongly urging restoration of funding "for this valuable program" during the appropriations process. The ATP was one of only a handful of programs singled out in this letter, a reflection of its importance to the Administration.

Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown and Under Secretary for Technology Mary Good have been forceful advocates for ATP. We all have been busy testifying before Congress and meeting with Members and congressional staff, trying to educate them about the ATP's value and your early successes. We have delivered speeches to industry and professional organizations which represent your interests. In addition, recognizing the important role the news media plays in communicating information about the ATP, we have reached out to reporters to ensure that the public is better informed about this program.

In this same vein, I want to recognize the efforts that many ATP participating organizations have made to tell their stories in a myriad of ways that help to explain the ATP's importance and successes. Some individuals and organizations have written letters of support, others have authored op-ed pieces, and others have joined coalitions to share their views. Public awareness of this industry-government technology partnership is growing rapidly!

It is important to remember that the federal budget process is typically a very long and complex process -- and it is expected to be even more complicated and lengthy this year when the Congress and the President are at odds over many different priorities.

In the meantime, we are continuing to manage the ATP with the expectation that we will receive funding in FY 1996 and beyond. Our priorities have always been, and continue to be:

1. projects under existing awards
2. projects in ongoing competitions, and 3. future competitions. We know that hundreds of companies have invested their time -- and substantial resources -- to prepare ATP proposals for these competitions. Many of these proposals involve the formation of joint ventures. NIST has proceeded through the entire review process for FY 1995 competitions, and it would be unfair to these companies competing for the awards to terminate or to put the competitions on hold.

Furthermore, we are obligated to carry out the FY 1995 appropriations act by moving ahead with the competitions under way. At the same time, we are fully cognizant of the investments and commitments made by our ATP partners from past competitions.

We think it makes sense to proceed and to let the budget process work, and we will use our very clear priorities -- stated above -- to guide future decisions once the budget process is completed.

We will keep you posted on developments and would be happy to send you copies of our recent testimony, reports, and success stories. Many of those documents are accessible electronically via the Internet and World Wide Web.*

The outcome of all of the actions on the ATP for FY 1996 is still uncertain. This is a battle that I personally believe can be won and is worth fighting for! I highly value and appreciate your interest in the ATP. Never has industry's voice been more critical to the national debate on industry-government partnerships and the future of the ATP.

Sincerely,

Arati Prabhakar
Director

* Electronic access to ATP files is available through the NIST gopher server: gopher-server.nist.gov or on the NIST World Wide Web home page at http://www.nist.gov.

DOC files can be accessed through the DOC WWW home page at http://www.doc.gov.