214 



same amount of money had to be spread over many years by one 

 country alone. 



As you know, while it may solve near-term problems, stretching 

 out a program is always more costly in the long run, and this is 

 especially true for large, relatively expensive space facilities. 



I also know that you are interested in technology transfer in 

 international cooperation. This is a concern on which I have 

 spoken on several occasions to your committee, Mr. Chairman, and 

 it is one NASA shares. To reap the benefits of cooperation without 

 jeopardizing the Nation's national security interests or the com- 

 petitive position of U.S. industry requires that care be exercised in 

 selecting, defining, and implementing joint programs. In projects 

 where there is foreign involvement, we make every effort to struc- 

 ture it so as to avoid unwarranted technology transfer, and I be- 

 lieve that the record indicates that we have been highly successful 

 in this regard. 



The way we operate is that foreign participants undertake to 

 provide a discrete piece of the overall project, and they are respon- 

 sible for developing that portion with their own technology and 

 with their own funds, and only the technical information necessary 

 to ensure effective interfaces and to assure that the project is pro- 

 ceeding appropriately is exchanged. 



In this way, we have found that we can enjoy successful coopera- 

 tive endeavors while protecting legitimate U.S. technological inter- 

 ests. I also might note, as other countries have developed strong 

 technology bases, I sense that they share very similar objectives in 

 this area. 



Another question raised by the task force report is how we can 

 assure that we are supporting science that has a clear focus, that is 

 not science for science's sake or international for international's 

 sake, and how we can make optimum use of our resources. 



In the case of NASA's programs, we have no separate budgetary 

 line items for international projects. We are not committed to 

 spending a certain amount of money on international projects in 

 any given year. Instead, all of our science projects must first gain 

 the support of our own communities, of our scientific advisory com- 

 mittees, and they must compete with other scientific projects 

 through our peer review and advisory committee structure. 



What this means is that the projects first and foremost must sat- 

 isfy an objective, a programmatic objective which NASA has identi- 

 fied in collaboration with the communities, with Congress, and 

 with the administrative branch. 



This process ensures that NASA pursues the highest priority sci- 

 ence. In addition, a basic ground rule of our international projects 

 is that the project be of mutual interest, since each side will have 

 to fund its respective responsibilities. We believe this also ensures 

 that the project will enjoy equally high priority on the part of our 

 partners. 



Earlier, the word was used by one of you, I believe, "altruism." 

 We have never felt that international cooperation ought to be 

 looked at, at least from NASA's point of view, as a charitable un- 

 dertaking. It ought to proceed out of self-interest and assuming 

 that all partners are approaching the project in terms of benefits to 



