pointing toward a commercial goal as being included in the Gov- 

 ernment's responsibility. 



Mr. FuQUA. You mentioned the 25 to 30 GHz, and of course, this 

 committee had funded that for a number of years, and we didn't 

 get much support from the administration, previous administra- 

 tions, for that, and it was phased down, and we reinitiated that in 

 the last couple of years to resume that because of an economic in- 

 terest that we felt was vital to the country. 



Dr. McDouGALL. I congratulate the committee on that move. We 

 would all like to see private industry carry the ball in these mat- 

 ters to the greatest degree possible. This administration, I think, 

 wants to do that, and I applaud that decision as well, because as I 

 said in my remarks, the Government ultimately cannot do for 

 other sectors of American society what those sectors are not willing 

 to do for themselves. 



This is the burden of my brief allusion to France and the Soviet 

 Union. If government is in the position of having to goad its citi- 

 zens and its institutions into doing something deemed important 

 for the national interest and continually crack the whip on them, 

 then that country is sick. Now, the implication of that is that a So- 

 cialist country is sick from the word "go," and I would agree with 

 that. [Laughter.] 



What Government, I think, wants to do in the United States — I 

 think most people in Government would agree — is not to supplant 

 private efforts but to stimulate them and encourage them, and that 

 means helping universities in basic research too expensive for the 

 universities to fund on their own, and provide seed money for cor- 

 porations to get involved in new technologies which they, by them- 

 selves, cannot profitably perform. 



But the danger in that — I am not criticizing such activities. I just 

 complimented the committee on supporting the 30-20 business. But 

 the danger of that, of course, is that we create a dependence in pri- 

 vate institutions on the Government. They have their own budgets 

 just as the Congress does, and if they can get the Government to 

 pay for something instead of they, themselves, paying for it, that is 

 great from their point of view. 



If the Government is going to decide what the next big technolo- 

 gy is and let them know and then pay for it, then their own initia- 

 tive is going to suffer. We can say, "Well, we think this is going to 

 be the next big technology; it might have commercial ramifications, 

 say, material processing in space; but if the Government money is 

 going to go somewhere else, then to heck with it; we will go the 

 way the Government wants us to go rather than pursue this on our 

 own." 



How one prevents that kind of behavior— I don't think you can 

 prevent it entirely, but how one can mitigate the consequences of 

 such behavior is, of course, a decision for lawmakers. Certainiy, 

 though, we would want to reward somehow universities and corpo- 

 rations that were willing to come up front and invest on their own 

 in new fields. 



I believe Grumman, for instance, has been spending a lot of 

 money on their own in the last 10 years investigating ways to build 

 large structures in space. I don't know whether anything is going 

 to come of it. I am not carrying a brief for Grumman. But I remem- 



