(1) Summary of comments and recommendations

(a) H.R. 8664 would have little direct effect on the development of domestic instruments.

(b) It would delay research.

(c) It would waste the funds available for research in science and medicine. (d) Its rejection would indirectly aid domestic manufacturers of quality instruments.

(2) Detailed statements

(a) Price is not the limiting factor in the purchase of instruments at the level of the electron microscope. A scientist will make every attempt to procure the instrument and service he, after careful study, thinks would be best for his research; if he is qualified, he will eventually get the funds to get that instrument and service whether duty is to be paid or not. H.R. 8664 would therefore have little direct effect on the volume of domestic instruments sold or on the manufacturer's interest in improving quality and service.

(b) If the scientist chooses to apply for a duty-free import permit under the awkward provisions of H.R. 8664, his research will be delayed until he gets his permit. If his application is turned down, there may be an additional delay while he further wastes his time seeking additional funds to pay the duty.

(c) If he is forced to pay duty, the additional cost would necessarily come from sources like the NSF, the NIH, and private foundations that support research in science and medicine. The net effect of the bill would therefore be simply to reduce the effectiveness of the already limited funds available to granting agencies and private foundations for scientific and medical research. This is the worst aspect of H.R. 8664!

(d) Some of the funds that would be saved if H.R. 8664 were not made into law would be available for the purchase of additional domestic instruments and services. The rejection of H.R. 8664 would thereby indirectly be a benefit to American manufacturers of quality instruments.

I would therefore respectfully urge you and the Committee to reject H.R. 8664. Very truly yours,

THOMAS F. ANDERSON,

Senior Member, The Institute for Cancer Research and Professor of Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. SEARS, PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, HOWARD UNIVERSITY AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE COLLEGE ENGLISH ASSOCIATION

I am Donald A. Sears, Professor of English at Howard University and Executive Secretary of The College English Association with a membership of over 2,000 national members plus 17 regional groups in all parts of the nation. I write in behalf of H.R. 8664 and H.R. 15271, which are identical bills to implement the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials (The "Florence Agreement"). Passage of this necessary implementing legislation would allow the United States to joint with the fifty countries already party to this Agreement.

From the days of Benjamin Franklin free exchange of scientic and cultural materials has been the policy of the United States. In our century of massive educational endeavor and of information explosion, this policy has special urgency.

The exchange of books, journals, and equipment in the scientific fields is perhaps obvious. But in the Humanities also such exchange is vital. For example, one of the best contemporary grammars was written in Denmark, an excellent study of early modern English is printed in Warsaw, and one of the great sources of linguistic studies is located in the Hague. A scholar must have ease of access to such works.

The testimony of Charles Frankel, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, assures us that passage of H.R. 8664 will have little or no adverse effects on native industires or on U.S. balance of payments. Quite the reverse, passage would positively benefit our colleges and universities as well as all those engaged in research. By promoting the freer exchange of ideas. it would promote international understanding.

འབ