White House, Congress to Battle Again Over Domestic Programs

Neither did last year's effort to kill it. Goodling, who left Congress in 2001, lobbied former colleagues, saying that none of the studies took into account improvements legislated first in the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, passed in 2000, then in Bush's No Child Left Behind law. Richard Long, chief lobbyist for the International Reading Association, said the Abt study showed only that the program does no better or worse than other programs that many of the children in the control group attended.

Perhaps more effectively, Goodling and the National Center for Family Literacy, which was founded by a former Goodling aide, brought families and children from the program to visit members of Congress. "They were amazed at what the program meant to those families," Goodling said.

They are preparing to do it all again, Long said. "We'll have teachers and parents writing letters, and quite frankly, we'll have the kids writing letters too, saying, 'At the very least, whatever the studies say, [Even Start] is helping me,' " Long said. "And that is a powerful case."

For some program cuts, the White House will say not that the program doesn't work, but that in tough budgetary times, choices must be made. For two years now, Bush has tried to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, designed to fund high-risk technology research that the private sector will not tackle. Opponents have labeled it corporate welfare and a giveaway to Fortune 500 companies.

This year, lawmakers did trim the program from $171 million to $142 million, eliminating new grants for the year, according to House Appropriations Committee documents.

For fiscal 2006, the White House will be diplomatic. Two administration officials involved in the program said they will acknowledge that the effort has been effectively run and that the Commerce Department has responded well to critics. But, they said, a flood of money to the new Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency is financing similar work.

"Like any agency, we think all our projects should be fully funded," said a Commerce Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because program cuts have not yet been proposed. "This is a good program. It's just not good enough."

David Peyton, director of technology policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he understands the approach. A high-profile National Academy of Sciences study blessed the program in 2001. "After the academy report, nobody could say with a straight face that the program does not work as intended," Peyton said.

The association and other powerful business groups are again massing to save the Advanced Technology Program, just as interests are mobilizing to save other programs. But both sides acknowledge this year may be a tough battle.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who chairs the subcommittee that funds housing and development, said Congress has saved programs from extinction for two years now by shifting money from other, better-financed efforts. But now every domestic program at Congress's discretion is tight.

Bond said he will try to beat back Bush's proposal on community development but said, "It doesn't look like a pleasant year."

Administration officials hope program cuts made in the 2005 budget will weaken opposition to their elimination. But they, too, are not too confident.

"Maybe Congress will look at [the budget] differently," said an administration official, cleared to discuss program cuts only anonymously. "But boy, I'm not going to get rich betting on what Congress will do."