30 



The second is satisfying the R&D interests of the agencies. Try- 

 ing to achieve those two goals simultaneously is going to lead to 

 these sources of conflict. 



Chairman TORKILDSEN. Thank you. Mr. Glover. 



Mr. Glover. I will be happy to quote from the testimony for this 

 subcommittee some 16 years ago the exact same kinds of screams 

 and gnashing of teeth when the bill was passed. I will be happy 

 to quote when the bill was reauthorized, the same kind of concerns. 

 What I am pleased about is that the agencies, while not liking the 

 program because it messes with what they really want to do, has 

 been so well received and the agencies are to be commended for the 

 fine job they have done, and I think the direction that has been 

 given in the past is wise and I think we want to continue in that 

 direction. 



But I can tell you over 30 years of looking at this problem and 

 reviewing the record, without direction from the Congress it will 

 not happen. I have seen Presidential memorandums ignored. I have 

 seen promises by agencies ignored and when you look at the total 

 amount that goes to small Dusiness, we still only see 3 percent. 

 That has not changed. The SBIR Program has kept it from going 

 down. 



But we still are not spending the money in the most productive, 

 innovative sector of our economy. If we are ever going to have a 

 commercialization program that matches our foreign competitors, 

 this is the one that seems to work the best of any we have tried, 

 and to cut it back instead of expanding it, seems to me to be the 

 wrong thing to do. 



Chairman TORKILDSEN. Would anyone else like to make any 

 other comments on any of the subjects we have touched upon 

 today? If not, I think it is appropriate that we conclude with Mr. 

 Glover's remarks. 



I thank the witnesses for their testimony and this hearing is ad- 

 journed. 



[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 

 to the call of the chair.] 



