into effect only in 1953. The National Decree was decided upon in article 189 of the 'Code des Douanes' and applied in 1950. Both decrees are completing and effective at present. However, the French decree of 1950 also comments on the compensation tax exemption which is not being repeated in the Florence Agreement with regards to application in France. Such cases, where besides the customs exemption there is also the possibility of receiving compensation tax exemption, have become relatively rare but not impossible after the practice of the Florence Agreement.

The method of payment via UNESCO-Bons as intended by the Florence-Agreement has also lost consideration since the liberalization.

2. The Direction des Industries Mecaniques et Electriques, Paris, Avenue Franklin-Roosevelt (called DIME) is in charge for the supervision of export regulations of both of the above mentioned decrees in France as ministerial commission. The name of this company is often mistaken, because the above two decrees do not apply to purchases for the industry, which basically are subject to duty.

DIME is a combination of several sections competent for certain apparatus groups, as for instance:

(a) Optique et Mecanique de Precision (Precision optics and mechanics). (b) Constructions Electriques (Electrical constructions).

(c) Metallurgie (Metallurgy).

(d) Automobiles, etc. (Automobiles).

In each section there is a staff of engineers who constantly compare French and foreign products and who grant the release for duty-free importation in accordance with a certain application-method. The following is in favor for a duty-free importation:

1. See Annex No. 5: Certain categorized materials;

2. See Annex No. 6: Certain consumer groups, i.e., basically State Research Organizations, such as Universities, C.N.R.S., and others. In addition a number of individual, non-state groups (list of organismes agrees).

Releases are granted upon fulfillment of the requirements in the FlorenceAgreement, namely that

(a) there is obviously no instrument of equal construction or application and none of equal quality in the national production,**

(b) the end-user confirms in writing that these instruments will be used for research-purposes. If the intended purpose changes, a subsequent duty-fee will

have to be paid,

(c) Certain documents have to be presented by the supplier :

1. Information about the supplying company,

2. Proforma-invoices and cost-estimate in duplicate.

3. Literature on instruments.

The first application can be made either by the customer or by the importer for the customer; however, all the above mentioned papers have to be sent to the DIME before a duty-release can be effected. The release formalities are very prompt, and we have seldom had to wait any longer than 8 days for the release.

The DIME is the sole authority for the release, i.e. in case of an application no submission to French manufacturers and no publication of the application will take place. From our experience we know that the DIME endeavors to give an objective opinion, to act competently in comparing technical instruments and not to take any rigorous steps against importers when in doubt.

Mr. CURTIS. The thing that I would worry about in the definition, Mr. McCauley, that you would suggest here: "tend to displace a U.S.made article" I pose this so that you can answer it-would be that a much superior article would, of course, replace or displace a U.S.made article, and this would, I think, defeat the very purpose of having superior, from a scientific standpoint, articles coming in, because that is the whole process or part of the process of what you could call competition. But even beyond that, the very fact of having a highly improved article that is not made in this country is of benefit.

**(In most cases the customer expresses in his letter to the DIME that "to his knowledge" no French instruments of similar type are being manufactured.)

The superior article would displace the inferior, so how would your test be helpful in implementing the purpose of the Florence agreement?

Mr. MCCAULEY. At the outset, Mr. Curtis, we don't believe our test answers every contingency. It cannot. No test can. What we are mainly interested in is that there be some definitive attention paid in evaluating a request for duty-free importation of an article, postenactment of the subject bills, where the record is clear that the imported article has previously been sold in competition with domestic articles. Mr. CURTIS. Then let me ask this. On page 11 you make the suggestion, and I am reading the exact language:

We urge that Section 6 of the bills be amended to provide that whenever the Secretary of Commerce determines that the importation of a foreign-made scientific instrument or apparatus would displace, or would tend to displace, a U.S.-made article, he shall find—

and so on.

Would you accept the adjective "a U.S. competitive-made article"? Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir. I would. I certainly would.

Mr. CURTIS. Because you do use the word "competitive" on page 12 in referring back to this.

Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir. I think that is a vast improvement. Mr. CURTIS. Then I think you would probably get back into this determination of equivalent scientific value, or at least that concept. I am impressed with the point your are making, and I think this committee is anxious as best we can to provide language guidelines, but we cannot make it so rigid that the guidelines are of no value.

Mr. MCCAULEY. We agree 100 percent with that, Mr. Curtis, and of course we are particularly aware of previous occasions where you insisted that statutes be drafted with guidelines so that people know.

Mr. CURTIS. I am most anxious for that, and I am most anxious to not use laws to impede, but only to facilitate. It is a difficult process.

Well, finally, let me say this: that I appreciate and do agree with the basic point that you have made, that the purpose of the Florence agreement as I understand it was to not get into the competitive area. I think that maybe we have pinpointed the areas of difference.

Whether we can come out with language that will meet this criterion in a satisfactory way, I don't know. That is why I am anxious to get the benefit of what procedure the other nations, who do import and do export, have established.

Mr. JOERGER. Mr. Curtis, may I make a comment and give an illustration that may help?

Mr. CURTIS. Čertainly.

Mr. JOERGER. When a bid is published, or a request for quotation is released, it usually says, "One Leitz model SM laboratory student microscope," and then goes on to explain it, "or equal." We submit a bid on the Bausch & Lomb equipment. Our dealer-salesmen get in and demonstrate our product, and we try to get the order.

I think that my friends from Leitz would say that they do the same. thing when they have the opportunity. However, I think they will also agree that, when a request for quotation comes out and it says, "Leitz photomicroscope," and they go on to specify it, in spite of the fact that they say "or equal," I doubt very seriously if they would have one instance where we submitted a bid and tried to compete with them on a dissimilar product.

We don't do that for this reason. We know that the success or failure of our company does not depend on that one order. As a matter of fact, if we made the attempt to force something on a customer that he really did not want, it would do us more harm than the value of the one order. We would much prefer to pass and say, "We don't make anything like that."

Mr. CURTIS. Well, of course, from the standpoint of pure competition, nothing could beat completely free trade. I say that as one who thinks there is a regrettable need still today for what I call differentials that reflect economic differences that are of importance to this society for other reasons. But, when we talk about competition, free trade would be the best answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING. Thank you again, Mr. McCauley.

Professor Jensen is our next witness. You are recognized, Mr. Jensen, and you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF PROF. HARALD C. JENSEN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON APPARATUS FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harald C. Jensen, and I am a professor of physics at Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, Ill., presently on leave at Harvard University. I represent the consumers of these scientific materials.

With your permission, I would like to submit the following statement relating to the Florence agreement on the importation of educational, scientific, and cultural materials.

I do so with some misgivings, because, while I have been a teacher of physics for the past 36 years and have very strong convictions on the necessity of the best possible education for the youth of our Nation, I do not claim to be an expert on the details of international tariff problems.

I appear before you as cochairman of the Committee on Apparatus for Educational Institutions of the American Association of Physics Teachers. The American Association of Physics Teachers is the spokesman for physics teachers in colleges and universities, and it represents many secondary school teachers.

It is devoted to the advancement of the teaching of physics and the enhancement of the appreciation of the role of physics in our culture. As such, it is vitally interested in all problems dealing with the teaching of physics.

The apparatus committee of the association is specifically charged with the responsibility of encouraging the increase and improvement of the supply of apparatus available to physics teachers for use in classrooms and in student laboratories.

PROVISIONS OF ANNEX D

Annex D of the Florence agreement states that included within its provisions will be:

Scientific instruments or apparatus, intended exclusively for educational purposes or pure scientific research, provided:

(a) That such scientific instruments or apparatus are consigned to public or private scientific or educational institutions approved by the competent

authorities of the importing country for the purpose of duty-free entry of these types of articles, and used under the control and responsibility of these institutions;

(b) That instruments or apparatus of equivalent scientific value are not being manufactured in the country of importation.

HEAVY DUTY ON EUROPEAN TEACHING EQUIPMENT

In recent years, European supply houses have brought out much new teaching equipment for student laboratory work and for classroom demonstrations. U.S. import duties and customs procedures for scientific apparatus effectively discourage teachers in the United States from giving their students the benefit of these developments.

Although the complicated schedule of duties on scientific apparatus cannot be briefly presented, the duties on most equipment of interest to physics teachers are not small ones. A 27-percent duty was levied, for example, on a demonstration electrometer and attachments, which were imported from West Germany by a college in the United States solely for the instruction of students in physics.

Equivalents of many of the devices are not available commercially in this country.

VERY LITTLE LOSS FOR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Studies by the Committee on Apparatus for Educational Institutions of the American Association of Physics Teachers indicate that very little loss would be suffered by domestic industry if science teachers were permitted to import from abroad without payment of duty only that scientific equipment which is not available in this country.

Most articles needed for science instruction and new scientific equipment produced in the United States would, of course, be purchased from domestic manufacturers. Yet the small amount of equipment imported duty free could have an immensely beneficial effect on our science teaching.

ADVANTAGES TO OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Our position as a world leader requires that we remain educationally strong as well as militarily and industrially strong. Building sound educational programs and providing teaching tools for science in the quantity and quality required by our teachers is of great importance.

It seems hardly necessary to point out that, in large part, our crucial scientific manpower problem will have to be solved in the classrooms of the Nation.

The dubious advantages to a small segment of American industry of tariff barriers against educational equipment must be weighed against the disadvantages of such tariff policies to our educational system.

The passage of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which expresses the clear intent of Congress to encourage the improvement of science laboratory facilities in our schools, lends great force to the argument that import duties on science teaching equipment that is unavailable in this country and is imported by educational institutions are outmoded and should be removed by the implementation of the Florence agreement.

AN ANALOGY

An analogy from the field of scientific manpower is illuminating. The number of foreign scientists and technologists who immigrate to this country is relatively small, but, as the careers of Fermi, Einstein, Von Neumann, Teller, and a few others demonstrate, their contribution has been large and profoundly important.

At the moment, the tariff laws insulate the U.S. educational system from the equivalent influence of good ideas in the equipment field.

We do not believe that this kind of insulation of the American educational system is good for the country's welfare, and urge you to implement the removal of these tariff restrictions as rapidly as possible.

I would like to add that from the viewpoint of a consumer of and a user of this scientific equipment, it is extremely important that in my position a person be able to buy, secure, and use this equipment in as simple and direct form as possible.

Mr. KING. Thank you very much Professor Jensen.

Dr. JENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. KING. Mr. Land is the next witness. You may proceed, Mr. Land.

STATEMENT OF H. A. LAND, SIEMENS AMERICA, INC., NEW YORK, AND PICKER X-RAY CORP.; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. LOTHAR SEIFERT, PHYSICIST, SIEMENS AMERICA, INC.; AND DR. WILLIAM LORANGER, PHYSICIST, PICKER X-RAY CORP.

Mr. LAND. Mr. Chairman, I will try and be brief in this matter. My name is Hans A. Land. I am an attorney with offices at 1730 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. I am here, having been retained to present the views of Siemens America, Inc., and of Picker X-Ray Corp., with regard to H.R. 8664, and H.R. 15271, introduced by Mr. Curtis.

I have on my left here a physicist, Dr. Seifert, on the executive staff of Siemens America. On my right I have another physicist, Dr. Loranger, on the executive staff of Picker X-Ray Corp.

Siemens America, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with principal offices at 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., selling, among other Siemens products made in Germany, about 35 to 45 electron microscopes in the United States annually, of which between 80 and 90 percent go to nonprofit organizations.

Picker X-Ray Corp. is a New York corporation with offices at 1275 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, N.Y. It is the exclusive sales agent for the United States of Associated Electrical Industries, known as AEI, for their English-made electron microscopes, and last year they sold 12 in the United States, 11 of which went to nonprofit organizations.

I ask you gentlemen not to confuse electron microscopes with microscopes which you have seen here today. We are talking about electron microscopes as an instrument costing in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 apiece, and a highly sophisticated instrument.

Picker and Siemens each has a substantial investment in its own technical service operation, built up to guarantee service and mainte

64-216-66-15