Economically we think that it will be advantageous to the industry. We also think that we might say that some of the major spots where we think we would gain in the export would be to the United Kingdom and to France, and also to I think increase probably also our imports to Canada. We think that the ratification would encourage more organized distribution in the United Sates of the materials, educational materials produced abroad. We have, for example, some need at the present time for foreign language teaching materials, certain research materials, science materials, and I think perhaps Dr. Whaley spoke of those yesterday, and a lot of cultural materials that would portray, for example, the life of children in other countries. So we need not only to get the U.S. materials abroad, but we need also some of these materials coming into the United States to balance and to increase the available materials. I think it was Senator Eugene McCarthy who said that the one area in which the Soviet Union cannot compete, and cannot even afford to try to compete, is in the area of ideas; the free discussion of ideas is a decisive point of difference between the democratic and totalitarian way of life, as far as our economic and military tactics in the cold war, and I would agree with his statement. A recent UNESCO document, the one that they had updated, which deals with suggestions to member states on measures to promote the free flow of information and ideas, states why this is important to UNESCO by relating it to article I of the Constitution of UNESCO, which deals with the promotion of the free flow of ideas. They talk about seven different areas. One of these is the use of mass media for education, and another is the movement of educational, scientific, and cultural materials; and, in about 10 suggestions that they have to member states, No. 2 of these is the ratification and implementation of the Beirut agreement. In view of our President's great interest, too, in greater involvement of education in the international field, it appears to us imperative that immediate attention be given to the implementation of the Beirut. agreement. The organization that I represent heartily endorses this action. I thank you very much. Mr. KING. Thank you, Dr. Hyer, for your fine statement. Mr. Curtis. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record open for Mr. Edwin Putzell, Jr., vice president and general counsel of the Monsanto Co. He was to testify, but I believe he has a prepared statement which could be put in the record. I want to say that I am particularly pleased to have an industry of this sort in my own community take the time to testify on such a subject. Of course, our chemical industry is heavily involved in research and development, and therefore has considerable concern in the movement forward of the Florence and Beirut agreements. Could Mr. Putzell's statement be put in the record at this point? Mr. KING. Without objection, it may be part of the record at this point. (Statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF EDWIN J. PUTZELL, JR., VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF MONSANTO CO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this statement, submitted by the undersigned on behalf of Monsanto Company, is in support of three bills: H.R. 8664 and H.R. 15271, identical bills to implement the Florence Agreement; and H.J. Res. 688, a bill to implement the Beirut Agreement. We welcome this opportunity to make our views known to the Committee and appreciate having this statement included in the official record of these hearings. Monsanto Company, with headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, is among the world's largest producers of chemicals, plastics and chemical fibers. Its consolidated sales in 1965 totaled $1.47 billion; its assets on December 31 of that year amounted to $1.78 billion. Its employes number in excess of 56,000, about 43.000 of whom are located in the United States. In this country, Monsanto operates 43 plants and 10 research laboratories in 23 states. And its domestic research subsidiary operates three other U.S. laboratories, including one for the Atomic Energy Commission in Miamisburg, Ohio. Beyond U. S. borders, Monsanto has significant manufacturing interests in such countries as Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Spain and the United Kingdom. Two additional facts further emphasize Monsanto's global activity. First, last year's sales to customers abroad represented more than 21 per cent of the company's total sales volume. Second, Monsanto's overseas experience began in 1920, when it undertook its initial venture in the United Kingdom. Thus Monsanto is not only deeply involved in world commerce but has been actively participating in it for more than 45 years. Consequently, the company is both sensitive to and concerned about the international aspects of the bills now being considered by this Committee. We realize, as you do, that proposed legislation affecting the relations between our country and others must undergo careful study and, if need be, improvement. There is simply too much at stake to do otherwise. This is a principal reason we applaud open hearings such as these. As to the bills now before this Committee: The Florence Agreement is, as you know, designed to remove tariff and other barriers to imported educational, scientific and cultural materials under certain conditions. The Beirut Agreement similarly would remove such restrictions on visual and auditory materials. Both agreements were given the advice and consent of the Senate in 1960. Monsanto supports the position taken by Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, Congressman Thomas B. Curtis and others that affirmative action by the Congress on this matter is long overdue. We are particularly pleased that the Committee has decided to proceed with hearings on this legislation. It is Monsanto's view that implementation of the Florence and the Beirut Agreements will help bring about greater understanding among nations. Because this is a desirable objective, the company supports the bills under consideration and urges their adoption by Congerss. We all know that international understanding is constantly strained by hot and cold wars, dollar diplomacy and matters of trade policy. But understanding can be vastly improved by educational, scientific and cultural interchanges. We believe that the United States should do all it can to promote such interchanges. Implementation of the two Agreements is a move in that direction. And, by the way, this is a two-way street. To the degree that implementing these two Agreements can add to a mutual understanding on the part of the United States and other nations, internaional relations at many levels will benefit. The Agreements under consideration are clearly reciprocal. They afford the United States a rare opportunity to demonstrate its willingness to accept an international pact benefiting all. A lack of willingness in the areas now under consideration could cast doubt on the possibility of achieving true reciprocity in the present Kennedy Round of GATT negotiations. For reasons already mentioned, Monsanto favors in their entirety the bills now before this Committee. As a major employer of scientifically trained personnel, the company is particularly interested in one portion of the Florence Agreement. It is that aspect which provides for duty-free importation of scientific apparatus intended exclusively for either educational purposes or for pure research by approved institutions and when instruments of "equivalent scientific value" are not manufactured in the importing country. Such provision obviously would be helpful to those U.S. institutions qualifying for duty-free importation of equipment. We believe, however, that the implications are far broader. We would expect significant benefits for the chemical industry, for industry generally and, indeed, for the people of this nation. Clearly all such benefits would not be direct. Monsanto, for example, would not be eligible to purchase duty-free equipment. Nor would our competitors. But a better trained scientific community would, hopefully, result. And such an expectation does not seem unreasonable. Research and development, which occupy a high percentage of Monsanto's scientists, have been termed the “lifeblood" of the chemical industry. Monsanto alone introduces new products at the rate of about 50 a year. Further, it would be no great exaggeration to describe research and development as the lifeblood of this nation. Witness, for example, relatively recent innovations in such fields as nucelar energy, rocketry, chemical fibers, plastics, synthetic detergents, miniaturized electronic components, and color television. Yet, it is easy in a world of such rapid technological advancement for us Americans to take such developments for granted. If one admits that research and development efforts are vital to our economy and our way of life, then it follows that well-trained scientists are equally vital. And the inadequate supply of such professional people is a mounting problem. At Monsanto, the problem is abundantly apparent-and we are typical of the industry. Our professional employes now number many thousands, about 90 per cent of whom are technically trained in the sciences. By 1975, Monsanto expects to have in its employ approximately three times the number of professional people as are now on its payroll. And we expect to be hiring such people at a rate of almost 3,000 annually. In the light of what has gone before, our projection does not seem unreasonable. We know that in the past 10 years national research and development budgets have more than trebled. Monsanto's own "research and development" costs rose from $17.4 million in 1955 to $69.9 million in 1965. And this year we anticipate that about $77 million will be spent for the same activities. Where shall we get all these scientists required by 1975? Our most pressing problem now is in meeting our current needs. The universities, through no fault of their own, are not graduating enough scientists to satisfy national requirements. Everyone concerned with the problem is attempting to help. For example, we are trying diligently to persuade more students to choose science as a career. We also make financial aid available. In 1965, Monsanto made gifts to 155 colleges, universities and other institutions in the forms of department grants, fellowships, scholarships and unrestricted gifts. Yet, what we and others have done has obviously not been enough. Monsanto regards implementation of the Florence and the Beirut Agreements as a most important step by the Federal Government to help remedy our nation's inadequate supply of topflight scientists. Such action will make it easier for educational institutions to acquire scientific apparatus and thereby to increase American scholarship in an area that is second to none in importance. In other words, in addition to efforts to increase the number of American scientists, let us take steps such as these bill's would provide better to train scientists. There is one additional advantage we would like to mention. As this Committee knows, it is extremely important that the United States correct its critical balance-of-payments problem. Great emphasis has been placed on maximum exportation of U. S. goods. In 1965, the import-export surplus of the U. S. chemical industry was $1.6 billion or 28 per cent of the U. S. trade surplus. It is Monsanto's considered opinion that America's participation in these Agreements can help stimulate the further development of new products and thus of exports. Conclusion The foregoing summarizes the basis for Monsanto Company's support of implementation of the Florence and the Beirut Agreements by the House of Representatives. The company sincerely believes such implementation can result in significant contributions to international understanding and trade, and to the advancement of American scholarship. Monsanto therefore respectfully recommends that the Ways and Means Committee approve H. R. 8664, H.R. 15271 and H. J. Res. 688. EDWIN J. PUTZELL, Jr., Vice President and General Counsel. Mr. KING. Without objection, a letter from the Association of American University Presses, Inc., endorsing the legislation, will be placed in the record. (Letter referred to follows:) THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESSES, INC., Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The news that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold hearings on the Florence Agreement on June 6-7 is most welcome to university presses. As publishers of scholarship we hold that there should be no barriers to its flow among nations; indeed, we go to great effort to put our books and journals into the hands of scholars and libraries throughout the world. Equally, we welcome the unhindered importation of books and journals into this country. The Florence Agreement removes impediments to this mode of transmitting knowledge, and therefore we urge prompt passage of the implementing legislation, H.R. 8664. The Association of American University Presses is already on record as fully supporting the Florence Agreement. A resolution endorsing it was sent to you on August 9, 1963. This Association is made up of 67 university presses: 63 in the United States (34 states and the District of Columbia), three in Canada, and one in Mexico. (A complete list of our members is appended.) The international character of our membership is further indication of our wholehearted belief in the Florence Agreement. We understand that you wish to limit the number of witnesses at the hearings in order to complete them promptly. Accordingly, we ask that you incorporate this letter in the printed record in lieu of oral testimony. Sincerely yours, MEMBER PRESSES CHESTER KERR, President. University of Alabama Press, Univer- | Huntington Library Publications, San sity. Ala. Marino, Calif. The University of Arizona Press, Tuc- The University of Illinois Press, son, Ariz. Bollingen Foundation, New York, N.Y. Brown University Press, Providence, University of California Press, Berk- Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y. The Catholic University of America The University of Chicago Press, Chi- Columbia University Press, New York, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y. Urbana, Ill. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kans. University of Kentucky Press, Lexing- Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Louisiana State University Press, Baton McGill University Press, Montreal 25, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, National University of México Press. Fla. Fordham University Press, Bronx, N.Y. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, México 20, D.F. University of Miami Press, Coral The University of Michigan Press, Ann The Michigan State University Press, The University of Minnesota Press, MEMBER PRESSES-Continued D.C. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, | Smithsonian Institution, Washington, The University of New Mexico Press, New York University Press, New York, The University of North Carolina Press, Northwestern University Press, Evans- University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oregon State University Press, Cor- Oxford University Press, Inc., New The Pennsylvania State University The University of South Carolina Press, Southern Illinois University Press, Car- Southern Methodist University Press, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, The University of Tennessee Press, University of Texas Press, Austin, Tex. The United States Naval Institute, An- Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, The University Press of Virginia, Char- University of Washington Press, Seattle, The University of Pittsburgh Press, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Pa. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Rutgers University Press, New Bruns- Mich. The University of Wisconsin Press, Yale University Press, New Haven, (Mr. Curtis submitted the following memoranda on analyzing the Florence and Beirut Agreements:) AGREEMENT ON IMPORTATION OF EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC (Public statement made April 29, 1966.) On June 1, 1965, Chairman Mills introduced H.R. 8664, a bill to implement the so-called "Florence Agreement." The Florence Agreement is an international agreement which provides that signatories remove tariff and other barriers to imported educational, scientific and cultural materials, such as books and paintings, and also scientific equipment purchased by qualified institutions if equipment of "equivalent" scientific value is not made in the importing country. A list of 49 nations which have put the Agreement in force is attached. The signatory countries include most of the industrial nations of the world with the notable omission of Canada and Japan. The Executive has not yet sent its analysis of the bill to Congress. HISTORY While the Florence Agreement is economic in form-technically a tariff and trade matter-it is most essentially an instrument to promote social and cultural understanding among nations. The Agreement was conceived by the 1948 General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), then technically revised by a meeting of the contracting parties of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and approved unanimously by the UNESCO General Conference in Florence in July, 1950. Opened for signature at Lake Success, N.Y., on November 22, 1950, the Agreement entered into force on May 21, 1952 with 10 nations having signed and accepted it. The United States did not sign the Florence Agreement until June 24, 1959. The U.S. hesitated-though it had been a strong force behind this agreement to strike down international "barriers to knowledge"-in part because the |