business of foreign supplier. I question how that got in there. Let me ask one other thing on buy American.

Have you actually been up against a buy American regulation so far as scientific instruments are concerned?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir; in the Defense Department.

Mr. CURTIS. In another committee I ran into something that disturbed me a great deal in finding that the Defense Department has one percentage for buy American purchases and GSA has another percentage. There is no coordination at all. Have you run into this kind of a situation?

Mr. DUNN. Personally I have not. I am turning around to talk to the executive vice president who might enlighten us.

Mr. CURTIS. Would you identify yourself?

Mr. DUNN. This is Mr. James E. Scarff, executive vice president of E. Leitz, Inc. Perhaps he can answer that question.

Mr. SCARFF Mr. Chairman, in the matter of this buy American, most of our instruments do not come under the provision of a differential as to price. Our instruments are usually much more expensive than any other instrument being considered. The finding that has to be made is that an instrument for that particular purpose possibly is not available in this country and those findings are made by the Armed Forces Institute and by other Government agencies using our equipment.

Mr. CURTIS. So buy American, I would imagine would not apply generally.

Mr. SCARFF. From a point of a price differential it does not but there has to be a finding by the using institution that they have explored what is available and they they have found that there is no other domestic equipment available for this particular use.

Mr. CURTIS. One other question. As you probably know, this committee has considered over a period of years a number of, in effect, private bills for specific instruments imported for a specific institution and the Department of Commerce has developed procedures for processing them. Have you ever been involved in any of these proceedings?

Mr. DUNN. No; we have not. I think those instruments, the last 14 bills that we are aware of, private bills, dealt with mass spectrometers.

Mr. CURTIS. That is true.

Mr. DUNN. The apparatus in the Department of Commerce that we looked into impressed us, with all due respect, as a rather casual examination into availability in the resolution of the questions they had. Actually in most of the cases there the instrument had already been introduced into the country and the bills are ratifications rather than approvals.

Mr. CURTIS. Oh, indeed, they were. The only reason I asked the question was that I think some of this procedure was patterned after what I understand had been developed in the Department of Commerce in handling these previous ones and I thought, if you had had any experience with those and thought the procedures were cumbersome, it might be helpful to have your statement. These were judgments on the part of the committee.

Mr. DUNN. In those other procedures there was no publication as, I recall, in the Federal Register, and all these things we have to do in this bill.

Mr. CURTIS. I want to be sure I am not putting words in your mouth. Actually, with the suggested amendments that you have to Mr. Mills' and my bill you would still end up, would you not, say, with better procedures than we presently have in taking care of the private bills? Mr. DUNN. That is right, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. Do you think that is a fair statement?

Mr. DUNN. I think with our amendments that is true; yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. I am thinking now in terms of our domestic industries. I want them to have a fair opportunity to present their side of the case in these determinations and, as I evaluate what you have recommended, this probably would end up in a more fair proceeding for them, too.

Mr. DUNN. As a matter of fact, we say it is a fair proceeding and they are given an opportunity to present their case because in almost every instance that we are familiar with these research institutions have regular demonstrations. They call on every manufacturer to come there and present his equipment and then they come to decisions with panels of their professors and scientists so that they have had a good test.

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING. Mr. Schneebeli.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. In connection with these mass spectrometers, would you give us your opinion on these manufacturers' claims that they could make this instrument as well as the foreign instruments that are brought in. There seems to be a question of the appraisal of the product adequacy. The Nuclide Co., a domestic manufacturer, claimed they could make this product and the only reason for its importation was a matter of price and not product development. Could you give us your appraisal of this.

Mr. DUNN. I don't think my personal appraisal would be of much value to you, sir. Perhaps Mr. Keller could. I am a lawyer more than a scientist.

Gentlemen, this is Emil Keller, also a vice president of E. Leitz, Inc. He is a technical man and can perhaps answer your question.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Since you represent the foreign manufacturer in sales I would like to get an answer to the argument of the domestic producer who says that he can make an instrument of comparable scientific value.

Mr. KELLER. A mass spectrometer is a very specialized instrument. It is almost unique in itself.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. It happens to be one of my constituents that I am talking about. I am not putting you on the defensive by that statement I hope.

Mr. KELLER. To make it in this country I am sure is possible. There is no reason why it couldn't be made.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. I think, if I may interrupt here, the reason given for it being brought in, is the claim that the domestic production unit did not do the job as well, did not make the precise instru

ment that the institution wants and it is brought in on his basis rather than the basis that it is brought in on the basis of price, so the domestic manufacturer claims. The institution says that the domestic manufacturer did not come up to specifications. I am trying to find out which, in your opinion, is correct. Can the domestic manufacturer in the case of mass spectrometers come up to specifications in the production of the unit?

Mr. KELLER. I am quite sure they could.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Then the claim of the institution that the instrument cannot be produced in this country is not entirely valid. We have acted on this basis, namely, that the only reason for importation was the fact that it could not be produced properly in this country. Mr. KELLER. I think the problem here is that we are talking about a very specific type of instrument.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Correct.

Mr. KELLER. A very specific type of instrument is very difficult to make one of, if you see what I am trying to say.

Mr. SCHNEEBELL. To make it to certain specifications.

Mr. KELLER. Yes and, if there is no chance for a like product to be produced again exactly the same way, it is a question of judgment whether you want to make this product or whether you don't want to make it.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. I realize it is a question of judgment and I am asking you your judgment whether in most instances they can be produced properly in this country. I think, initially, you said you thought they could be.

Mr. KELLER. I think so.

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. That answers my question.

Mr. SCARFF. I would like to make the point that we are not in the mass spectrometer business and cannot qualify as experts in that field. Mr. SCHNEEBELL. That is why you can be objective.

Mr. KING. Mr. Watts.

Mr. WATTS. I can very readily see, without having heard the other side of it, why a domestic outfit should be allowed to continue to import these items and handle the transaction with the American scientific or educational or whatever institution that might want a certain instrument. Certainly if it is an instrument that can be obtained somewhere else it would not matter to me whether it was handled through a domestic corporation or whether it was handled directly abroad. As a matter of fact, I would much rather it be handled domestically because that would promote commerce in the United States. I can also recognize that where the Federal Government purchases outright an instrument the tariff duty on it is out of one pocket and into the other pocket. But you do have many situations in educational institutions where there are Federal grants also matched by State grants and also matched by many other types of money where it is all commingled and many of these instruments are purchased out of the joint fund. What would be your idea of how that should be handled? Mr. SCARFF. I would think they would have to be handled as a private fund business.

Mr. WATTS. In other words, if there is any private funds in it, it would not come into the Federal exemption at all.

Mr. SCARFF. That would be my thought because that does not transfer from one pocket to another.

Mr. WATTS. Do you carry many of these instruments or some of them in stock?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATTS. How are you going to handle the duty on those, since when you stock them, you don't know to whom you are going to sell them.

Mr. DUNN. Of course.

Mr. WATTS. Do you make the payment of duty and then ask for refund?

Mr. DUNN. Those would be sold to institutions that do not qualify under this bill.

Mr. WATTS. In other words, on any that are going to qualify under this bill you would not order that instrument until after you received the order from the institution?

Mr. DUNN. That would have to be imported.

Mr. WATTS. That would not expedite the delivery?

Mr. DUNN. That is right. We would not sell out of stock if it were to one of these institutions qualifying under this bill.

Mr. WATTS. Could some way be arranged whereby instead of delaying the institutions, if they need it as badly as you say they do in some instances, that you could stock the instrument, and get a refund after sale to a qualifying institution?

Mr. DUNN. Then if they need it that quickly and badly they could buy the instrument on which the duty had been paid and they could get it immediately out of stock.

Mr. WATTS. And pay the duty.

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATTS. So you would not contemplate selling it out of stock as a duty-free sale?

Mr. DUNN. No, sir.

Mr. WATTS. You do want to leave it entirely up to the institutions to determine whether or not a domestic instrument of the same kind would be satisfactory and could be used as easily and well. I don't know whether I want to go along with that or not.

Mr. DUNN. Some of these institutions, you will be interested to know, actually spend literally weeks, with heads of their departments going over every instrument that is offered there, domestic and foreign, and they really make a great study of it.

Mr. WATTS. Having lived with human beings all my life, I know something of their good points and I recognize their frailties. I recognize that some of them do a very fine job of sorting out what they could not get here from what they could get abroad and I also recognize that there are other types of humans where the monetary end of it would have quite an influence and there would be nothing to prohibit that from occurring under the way you want to do it. On the top of page 5 of your statement you state:

Instead of facilitating the flow of scientific apparatus to research institutions and scientists, the procedures provided in the present bill would seriously impede such flow and handicap th scientist in obtaining the equipment best suited for this work.

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. DUNN. Yes, sir.

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.