Do I gather from that statement that you think this legislation, if enacted as it now is, would be worse than the present situation? Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir. Mr. WATTS. You do? Mr. WATTS. But if we should modify it to the extent of saying that a domestic outfit could provide it rather than a foreign supplier, you do not agree with that, do you? Mr. DUNN. No, sir. Mr. WATTS. Thank you, sir. Mr. KING. Are there further questions? Thank you again, gentlemen. Mr. KING. Our next witness is Mr. Leonard Feist. Will you identify yourself for the record, Mr. Feist, and then proceed as you wish. (See p. 198 for a supplemental statement by Mr. Dunn regarding what other signatory countries are doing in the way of legislation implementing the Florence Agreement and their procedures thereunder, per request of Mr. Curtis.) STATEMENT OF LEONARD FEIST, MUSIC PUBLISHERS' COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS Mr. FEIST. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Leonard Feist. I reside at 180 East 79th Street, New York City, and am executive secretary of the National Music Publishers' Association, a trade association which includes in its membership some 50 of the most prominent publishers of popular music in the United States. The trade association of the publishers of educational, concert, and sacred music is known as the Music Publishers Association of the United States. It, similarly, has a membership of 50 or more of the leading publishers in those fields. The two associations of music publishers have established a joint committee the Music Publishers' Committee on Federal Relations, of which I am honored to be chairman and on behalf of which I appear before this committee. I am grateful for the opportunity afforded me today to testify on H.R. 8664, the legislation to implement the Florence agreement. Ever since the concept was first discussed, music publishers have been more than favorably disposed toward the participation of the United States in this forward-looking international development and were among the groups which enthusiastically supported its adoption as a treaty in 1960. It follows, therefore, that we are in full support of the legislation which will implement the treaty and make it, at long last, operative. Other witnesses will have, I am sure, spoken eloquently concerning the manifold benefits to the American educational and cultural communities, to the country as a whole and to international understanding. It would seem, therefore, superfluous to further develop these lines of thought other than to comment that we agree thoroughly with witnesses testifying in detail on those consequences of the proposed legislation. My remarks will be limited to the area of music and the beneficial impact which we believe will be the result for music, domestically and internationally, when the Florence agreement becomes operative. Although the present tariff on music is small and serves no protective function, it does serve as an impediment to its free flow and circulation. In fact, as you are aware, not all music is now subject to duty and as a result there are irksome mechanical complexities in handling its importation. While there will be some benefit to the American musician in the minor price reductions which will result from the elimination of duties on all music, music publishers have no fear that this freer flow of imported materials will affect our market in any way. In fact, except for popular music where the lyrics require translation, music is usually issued only in one edition-that of the country of its originwhich is circulated throughout the world. There is very little reprinting in other countries. It is in the materials of music for performance where the free, unimpeded flow may be of the greatest importance. Such materials exist not only in printed form but also, and most often in new works, in manuscript or in a small number of duplicated copies. The easy accessibility of these materials, which are shipped between various countries as performance circumstances require, is of prime importance to the performers of larger and more important musical works. They are frequently needed on short notice and the customs barrier has, in the experience of music publishers, impeded performances from time to time because of delays in clearance through customs of even a small part of the materials necessary for a performance. In the past two decades the status of American concert music has been greatly increased in the cultural centers of the world. Regard for American musical achievements is growing in a heartening manner and, as such developments go, at a rapid pace. More and more, as it has been for so long in popular music, the United States is becoming an exporter of concert music, particularly in performance. The Florence agreement, we feel, will be of considerable assistance in the circulation of the actual materials of performance and will thus further stimulate the growth and acceptance of American music throughout the world. At the same time, it will give us easier access to the new music and the new musical expression of other countries and this cross-pollution will benefit everywhere. Therefore, I would like, on behalf of the music publishing industry of the United States to urge your favorable consideration of the legislation now before you. In addition to my appearance here today on behalf of the music publishing business, as chairman of the Government Relations Committee of the National Music Council I would like to present a resolution passed by that organization in favor of H.R. 8664. The National Music Council has a membership of 54 organizations representing all aspects of musical life in the United States with membership in excess of 1,250,000. With your permission, I will not read the resolution but request if possible that it may be made part of the record. I have appended to the resolution a list of the member organizations of the National Music Council. Mr. KING. Without objection it may be made part of the record. (The resolution referred to follows:) 64-216-66- -11 NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT Resolved That the National Music Council with a membership of 54 organizations 1 representing all aspects of musical life in the United States with membership in excess of 1,250,000 now in session at its General Membership meeting in New York City urges prompt and affirmative action by the Congress on H.R. 8664 so that the approval of the Florence Agreement by the Senate of the United States in February, 1960, may at long last be implemented and the United States may join with the fifty other countries which are already signatories of this treaty providing for freer interchange of educational, cultural and scientific materials without the impediment of the tariff barriers and be it further Resolve That the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, as the first step to this end, be requested to initiate hearings on this important legislation at the earliest possible date. Mr. FEIST. May I, in closing, express my gratitude to the committee for permitting me to appear and to present the views of the music community. 1 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSIC COUNCIL Amateur Chamber Music Players American Academy of Teachers of Singing American Choral Directors Association American Choral Foundation American Composers Alliance American Federation of Musicians American Guild of Authors and Composers American Guild of Musical Artists American Guild of Organists American Matthay Association American Music Center American Music Conference American Musicological Society American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers American Society of Music Arrangers American String Teachers Association American Symphony Orchestra League Broadcast Music, Inc. College Band Directors National Association College Music Society Composers and Lyricists Guild of America Delta Omicron Hymn Society of America Leschetizky Association Moravian Music Foundation Mu Phi Epsilon Music Committee of the People-to-People Program Music Educators National Conference Music Library Association Music Publishers' Association of the United States Music Teachers National Association National Association for American Composers and Conductors National Association of Music Merchants National Association for Music Therapy Sigma Alpha Iota Society for Ethnomusicology Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America Society for the Publication of American Music United States Army, Navy and Air Force Bandsmen's Association Mr. KING. We appreciate your presentation, Mr. Feist. Are there questions? There being no questions, thank you, Mr. Feist. Mr. FEIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KING. Our next witness is Mr. McCauley. It is good to see you again, Mr. McCauley. STATEMENT OF ALFRED R. McCAULEY, SCIENTIFIC APPARATUS MAKERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID J. JOERGER, SALES MANAGER, INSTRUMENT DIVISION, BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., ROCHESTER, N.Y.; AND GEORGE LAWRENCE, SECRETARY, SCIENTIFIC APPARATUS MAKERS ASSOCIATION Mr. MCCAULEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Alfred R. McCauley, a member of the law firm of Graubard, Moskovitz & McCauley whose Washington office is in the Shoreham Building. Mr. David J. Joerger, sales manager of the Instruments Division of Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Rochester, N.Y., is with me to assist in this presentation. We appear here today in behalf of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill. The Scientific Apparatus Makers Association (SAMA), organized in 1918, is a trade association representing over 200 member companies which manufacture and distribute scientific, industrial and laboratory instruments and apparatus. SAMA represents here, and speaks for, the large majority of the U.S. producers of these articles. SAMA has prepared a position paper on the Florence Agreement which includes an analysis of the agreement's provisions of interest to SAMA, as well as an analysis of the terms of H.R. 8664 and H.R. 15271 relating to these provisions. In this paper we also discuss in detail several changes in the bills which we believe are required. Mr. Chairman, we would like permission to have this position paper follow our testimony in the record of these hearings and to devote our time now to highlighting the contents of this paper. Mr. KING. Without objection, it will be done. Mr. MCCAULEY. At the outset, SAMA wishes to have on record its complete and unqualified support of the Florence Agreement. SAMA's members, perhaps more so than others, are keenly aware of the benefits which can be realized by all peoples of the world if this agreement is fully implemented and a free and unfettered flow of knowledge and ideas across international boundaries results. For this reason, we urge the Congress to enact legislation which will permit the United States to apply the Florence Agreement provisions definitively. Our interest in the bills before the committee today centers primarily on the provisions of section 6 which look to implementing U.S. undertakings in the underlying agreement relating to imports of scientific instruments and apparatus. These U.S. undertakings in the agreement are set forth in specific detail in annex D to the agreement. In general, annex D requires the United States to extend duty-free treatment to imports of 1. Scientific instruments or apparatus provided that 2. Such scientific instruments or apparatus are consigned to public or private scientific or educational institutions, 3. Such scientific instruments or apparatus are used under the control of such institutions exclusively for educational purposes or for pure scientific research, and 4. Scientific instruments or apparatus of equivalent scientific value are not being manufactured in the United States. Condition 1 sets the scope of the class of articles entitled to duty-free entry. Only scientific instruments or apparatus are embraced. Nonscientific articles used in a laboratory or similar facility such as plumbing equipment, standard electrical equipment, furniture, and so forth, are not covered by the provision. Condition 2 restricts the class of importers entitled to receive dutyfree treatment. Only scientific or educational institutions qualify; commercial institutions or organizations are not entitled to the benefits of the duty-free provision. Condition 3 restricts the use or uses to which the imported articles may be put by the importing institution. Thus, to the extent an institution engaged in commercial pursuits, it could not use any article imported under this provision in such pursuits. Condition 4 limits duty-free entry to foreign-made scientific instruments or apparatus only where there is no U.S. article of equivalent scientific value being manufactured. Before we discuss the provision of the bills which are intended to implement this multiconditional duty-free entry commitment, and the reservations SAMA has with respect to some of these provisions, we think it will be instructive to inquire briefly why the Florence agreement provision of duty-free treatment of scientific instruments and apparatus incorporated these conditions. Stated another way, why did not the framers of the Florence Pact adopt a provision which would grant unqualified duty-free entry to imports of scientific instruments and apparatus? The answer, we submit, lies in two important considerations which served to guide, and indeed to restrict, the framers of the Florence Pact and the scope of the treaty they negotiated. As we previously noted, the effort in the Florence accord is to free-up the international exchange of knowledge and ideas. But the framers of the Florence agreement recognized that much of man's knowledge, and many of his ideas, are expressed or contained in tangible objects which are articles of commerce, bought and sold in the market places of the world, and, accordingly, that freeing-up trade in knowledge and ideas completely would require freeing-up a sizable amount of competitive commercial trade. The framers of the agreement knew that an instrument directed to this end would never see the light of ratification. They understood that their chances of bringing into existence an operative agreement were inversely in proportion to the amount of controversy in the agreement's provisions. The more controversy, the less chance of ratification, and vice versa. In addition, the Florence framers appreciated that the Florence agreement was not the proper vehicle for removing duties on competitive commercial trade. In 1950, the year the Florence Pact was readied for signature, most nations of the world, including most of the |