and optical sections is comprised of 136 companies, representing an overall average of 70 to 75 percent of the industry in terms of number of companies and 80 percent in terms of total sales volume.

GENERAL COMMENTS

For the sake of brevity, it is requested that the following prior statements be considered supplemental to this statement and, therefore, commended to the attention and study of the subcommittee and its staff in the preparation of the report and findings of the present study submitted by the laboratory apparatus and optical sections, Scientific Apparatus Makers' Association, before the following:

1. Committee for Reciprocity Information, December 16, 1946.

2. Munitions Board, March 9, 1948.

3. United States Tariff Commission, January 17, 1949.

4. Committee for Reciprocity Information, May 17, 1950.

5. Commission on Foreign Economic Policy, December 14, 1953.

6. Committee for Reciprocity Information, December 20, 1954.

7. United States Tariff Commission, October 17, 1955.

Also commended to the attention of the subcommittee is the statement of the Optical and Ophthalmic Glass, Lens, and Instrument Industry Committee submitted to the United States Tariff Commission and the Committee for Reciprocity Information on December 27, 1954, and another statement by this same committee submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee on March 22, 1956.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

It is suggested that more care and additional time be expended in the perilpoint investigations and in the deliberations of the Committee for Reciprocity Information prior to entering into negotiations for the reduction and adjustment of duties. It is the feeling of this industry that at least as much deliberation should be exercised in behalf of the domestic industry prior to tariff reductions in regard to the effects of such a reduction as is exercised after the reduction to determine the extent or threat of the serious injury after tariff concessions have been granted.

It is suggested that great care be exercised in the appointment of the members of the Trade Agreements Committee, and that these individuals be made responsive to the wishes of the agency they represent. Where there exists prior knowledge that negotiations will include particularly critical areas of interest to domestic industry, these domestic industries should be invited to send qualified consultants to assist and counsel the United States negotiators at the time of the negotiations so that all of the facts and possible effects on the various interests are clearly known before particular concessions are granted. In other cases, where it is not possible to have consultants directly available to the negotiations, free lines of communications should be established with existing Government agencies so that industry advisory committees, special consultants, trade associations, and even representative individual companies could be speedily consulted and pertinent advice forwarded to the negotiator for his guidance. The progress and results of tariff and trade negotiations should be made available to United States industry at the same time they are made available to foreign interests.

ESCAPE-CLAUSE ACTIONS

The so-called escape clause provisions of the Trade Agreements Act, as recently revised, probably are as near to the intent of Congress as is possible with legal wordage. The fair and equitable operation of these provisions, however, is being effectively thwarted by administrative interpretation. Many industries have repeatedly attempted to utilize these provisions of the law and have at great expense and vast drain of executive manpower made long and detailed presentations of their case to the Tariff Commission. They have in most cases gained a favorable finding from the Tariff Commission, only to have the recommended relief overruled by the executive branch on the basis of seemingly aribitrary determinations in "the best national interest" or on the basis of unilateral facts supplied subsequent to the proceedings and from sources other than the Tariff Commission. It is this dismal history of administration of the escape clause provisions which has caused domestic industries suffering an economic disadvantage from imports to despair taking recourse to the provisions of the law and to conclude that the United States Congress has surrendered its constitutional powers to control the tariffs and trade to the executive branch.

It is suggested that study be given to manners in which the findings of the United States Tariff Commission, a delegate agency of Congress, be made more binding on the executive branch, and should it be suggested that these findings be overruled, final referral should be made back to the Congress before final action is taken.

DEFENSE INDUSTRIES AMENDMENT-SECTION 7

The Scientific Apparatus Makers Association embraces many industries and segments of industries which are extremely critical to the national defense in times of emergency and which are operating at an economic disadvantage in regards to foreign manufacturers. In many cases the extent of this economic disadvantage is such that it is felt that the increasing flow of foreign-made products into the United States markets has caused serious damage to the United States mobilization base by reducing the abilities of the domestic manufacturer to produce the materials needed in time of national emergency. These industries held high interest in the passage into law, in June of 1955, of section 7 of the Trade Agreements Act-the so-called defense industries amendment. Their interest was tempered, however, by the previous history of disappointing adminstrative interpretation of the escape clause proceedings. In the 15 months which have passed since these provisions have become law, little has been published in terms of criteria and procedures under which the industry cases will be judged, and to date no petition has been finally acted upon.

It is sincerely hoped that the future actions of the Director of Defense Mobilization and the President will serve to give those domestic industries which are essential to the national defense assurance that their best interests in behalf of the national security will receive the prompt and judicious attention which was intended by the Congress at the time of the enactment of these provisions.

BUY AMERICAN ACT

Within the industries and product groupings represented by the Laboratory Apparatus and Optical Sections, Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, principal foreign competition comes from Germany, Japan, Italy, and Switzerland. The products involved are all extremely high in precision class, and in the most part fill specialized low volume markets so that they are not susceptible to mass production techniques. They are therefore labor-intensive in character and the cost competition with foreign-made, comparable products resolves to substantially a comparison of the labor rates paid. For these reasons, even the previous 20-25 percent price differential interpretation of the Buy American Act was not, in most cases adequate to give the domestic manufacturer an equal opportunity to obtain Government business. The present 6-9 percent interpretation is the same as complete removal of the cost differential provisions of this act. The remaining provisions of the act relating to the "best national interests" have never been effectively applied in the areas of interest to these industries.

Corollary to this situation are the procedures and practices of the International Cooperation Administration in its procurements for foreign aid and technical assistance programs. In the past, the American manufacturer has invested considerable time, effort and money in support of these programs in the preparation of technical proposals, specifications, counsel on selection of equipment, and detailed cost estimates-all services not readily available to the program administrators and procurement officers from the foreign firms. Actual equipment purchases then go out on advertised bid and awards are made in substantially all cases to foreign manufacturers on the basis of an "f. o. b. Hong Kong" or "f. o. b. Hannover" price that averages from 30 to 60 percent lower than the domestic manufacturers.

Of even greater concern to the domestic industries represented by this association than the immediate loss of business is the fact that in the United States sponsored technical centers, hospitals, training laboratories, and schools-paid for with American tax dollars-the "Made in USA" label is barred and the future scientists, technicians, engineers, teachers and doctors of these foreign countries are being trained on Japanese, German, and Italian equipment. Thus the actions and procedures of our Government are not only handicapping United States industry in current markets, but also are having a long-range effect on the abilities of United States industry to compete in world markets that may very well lead to surrender of our technical leadership.

It is therefore suggested that provisions be incorporated in the Buy American Act that would lead to the creation of a list of products of those domestic industries that are critical to our national defense and future national welfare, and all

Federal agencies be directed to procure their needs of these products from domestic sources.

COMMENTS ON OTHER TESTIMONY

Please note: The numbers listed below correspond to the paragraph numbers of the statement before the Boggs committee, "Concerning Duty-Free Imports of Educational Apparatus by the Committee on Scientific Apparatus for Educational Institutions of the American Association of Physics Teachers."

1. Members of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, Laboratory Apparatus and Optical Sections are in hearty accord with the Committee on Scientific Apparatus for Educational Institutions of the American Association of Physics Teachers' statement calling attention to the "crisis in scientific teaching." It is because of this deep concern over the critical situation existing in America, that members of the scientific apparatus makers have not only been active in attempting to alleviate problems concurrent to scientific teaching, per se, but other problems as well, such as: encouraging more able young people to study science, the improvement of science teaching facilities, honoring of outstanding science instructors and constant liaison and cooperative committee work with the Nation's leading professional groups in dealing with these many problems.

The Committee on Scientific Apparatus for Educational Institutions is to be congratulated for its deep interest and concern for the country's scientific teaching crisis. It is a grave problem, indeed, and one whose solution depends upon the continued interest of teaching groups in the problem and continued cooperative efforts on the part of science teachers, makers of the "tools of science" and other groups interested in the potential health, welfare, and security of the Nation.

However, volumes of research based upon the studies of this country's outstanding science educators dealing with the possible causes of a "crisis in science teaching" do not bear out the contention that "more readily available teaching equipment" would solve the problem or in any way be a major influence in its solution.

Substantiating evidence in refutation to paragraph 1 was distributed (exhibit I) at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Physics Teachers on January 31, 1956. In this exhibit, Some Quotations From the Literature, statements by W. C. Kelly, P. D. Hurd, final report to the Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers, American Association of Physics Teachers' report, etc., etc., clearly attribute this country's critical shortage of scientists and engineers and its correlative problem, the "crisis in science teaching," to many and variable factors other than that of any "shortage of suitable science teaching apparatus and/or equipment"

Further, report No. 45, July 19, 1956, "Physics Science Aptitude and Attitudes Toward Occupations, Purdue opinion panel, Purdue University, clearly points out, too, that the "existing crisis in science teaching" and the "present alarming shortage of scientists and engineers" cannot in any way be directly attributed to any lack of "readily available teaching equipment."

Also, recently the Subcommittee on Research and Development of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy held hearings on the shortage of scientific and engineering manpower. A recurrent theme in the hearings, and one that is emphasized in the report, is that the quality and quantity of instruction in mathematics in our high schools is of such fundamental and general importance that vigorous action should be taken to improve mathematics teaching and to strengthen the place of mathematics in the curriculum.

It certainly is very hard to see in this very recent statement from the Atomic Energy Commission that this thoroughly objective group of scientific and technological leaders of our country made any statement or citation that the critical shortage of scientists and engineers in America had any relationship to the alleged inadequacies and shortcomings of the scientific instrument industry. 2. Further, "lack of interest" on the part of apparatus suppliers is not borne out by fact:

(a) Scientific Apparatus Makers Association staff representative meeting with Professors Brown and Holton, November 14, 1955, clearly shows the scientific instrument industry's concern and wholehearted interest in working with the American Association of Physics Teachers committee and clearly points out that a basis for understanding and future cooperative working ventures on behalf of the American Association of Physics Teachers committee were planned and begun as the first step in alleviating any alleged fault of the scientific instrument industry by Professors Brown and Holton (exhibit II).

Exhibit III is also illustrative of the type of cooperation continually performed by manufacturers in the hope of working with physics and/or science instructors.

(b) Meeting with Scientific Apparatus Makers Association American industry development committee and the committee on scientific apparatus for educationalinstitutions, January 31, 1956, is again offered in evidence to support the fact that duly authorized representatives of the scientific instrument industry met in good faith with the American Association of Physics Teachers committee and formulated a program of cooperative action for the alleviation of the alleged criticism of the industry (exhibit IV).

(c) A letter from Professor Brown, February 15, 1956 (exhibit V), states in part, "I believe we all felt that the meeting was a very successful one. The members of my committee on scientific apparatus for educational institutions of the American Association of Physics Teachers were impressed by the sincere desire on the part of the apparatus manufacturers to do everything in their power to help alleviate the critical shortage of physicists."

(d) Further, it is interesting to note here that all meetings to date with members of Professor Brown's committee have been initiated, planned, and organized by industry representatives. As another example of industry's wholehearted willingness to aid and work with all members of the teaching profession, and specifically with the physics teachers' group, a grant of $10,000 was made to the committee a little less than a year ago by one of the members of the industry as an aid to surveying, studying, and following the recommendations of the Brown committee should any be forthcoming as a result of their endowed study. The study is now in progress. This monetary gesture on the part of one company within the industry coupled with continued liaison between all concerned companies and members of the science-teaching profession can hardly be cited as industry's "lack of appreciation for the problems of the science teacher."

As another illustration of American industry's sincerity and good faith in maintaining constant liaison with physics instructors pertaining to the ultimate production and marketing of new equipment, exhibit VI shows one of several kinds of questionnaires a single company in the industry continually sends its college physics teachers throughout the year to sample opinions on new instruments. This particular query was mailed to more than 250 physics instructors. This is, of course, over and above the numerous personal interviews and conferences between America's teachers and thoroughly qualified instrument company sales representatives where further proposals for new instruments and apparatus are discussed on a personal grassroots basis.

(e) As another example of work in progress at the moment between the American Association of Physics Teachers' committee on scientific apparatus for educational institutions (exhibit VII) a letter from Dr. Brown as late as July 25, 1956, documents the fact that work to alleviate the alleged criticism of the American instrument industry is now well underway and progressing favorably.

(f) Under the guidance and direction of the public information committee of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association's laboratory apparatus and optical sections, it can be shown that this association, representative of the country's scientific instrument manufacturers and distributors, is vitally interested in the problems having to do with the critical shortage of scientists and engineers and has invested considerable time, money, and effort in research and liaison with the country's leading professional groups, the National Science Foundation, and the President's newly appointed Committee on the Availability of Scientists and Engineers.

This work at the moment will soon be culminated in a national program aided by the Scientific Manpower Commission and the Engineering Manpower Commission in a project which should be of considerable help in the alleviation of our scientist-shortage problems. This is but one facet of a continuing program sponsored by scientific instrument manufacturers on behalf of the country's scientific and technological progress.

In a recent publication, developed by the advertising manager of Science, the official magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it is stated that “ A recent survey showed that colleges and universities accounted for 23 percent of all the money spent on research equipment-and this figure does not take into account the industrial purchases influenced by academic personnel serving as industrial consultants." This statement does not support the American Association of Physics Teachers' conclusion of the "Small size of the educational market compared with the industrial market" (exhibit VIII). The above percentage market data is especially stressed inasmuch as only about 7.4 to 7.5

percent of the total sales of manufacturers and suppliers of apparatus and instruments are actually used as classroom teaching instruments per se. It then immediately becomes apparent that an average of 23 percent of all imported instruments and apparatus would immediately enter the country under the guise of teaching equipment even though very little of the duty-free imports would actually be used in a teaching situation.

3. (a) Experience has shown that no matter the amount of "relatively inexpensive educational apparatus" available, purchase and use of all scientific equipment for educational institutions is limited, with but few exceptions, by the desperately small budgets of the country's science departments.

(b) Perhaps a few of the larger American universities might be able to save money through the importation of scientific apparatus and equipment. But the fact remains that the thousands of smaller high schools and colleges would not actually find any monetary relief or aid to their budgets through the importation of such equipment.

Relative to the statement that this country's import tariff on corresponding equipment is higher than any other country in the world, it is interesting to note that the United Kingdom and several other countries may permit free entry of scientific instruments for educational purposes, but it should be pointed out that currency and security restrictions of the United Kingdom would prohibit the purchase of scientific instruments and apparatus for educational purposes or any other purposes under nearly all circumstances.

Refuting the statement that this country's tariffs are also "far larger than import tariff on corresponding equipment in any other country in the world," it is interesting to note that as early as August 1921 England established its Safeguard of Industry Act. In this particular act, makers of scientific instruments, apparatus, and equipment were, then, singled out as "key industry," and given almost complete protection against import competition.

In 1936 a British Board of Trade reviewed the Safeguard of Industry Act and not only affirmed the act's original intent-that of safeguarding England's instrument industry from "destructive" imports-but stated that, "in no other industry were research and development more important to the imperial defense than in key industries * * *" (publication, London, 1936, pp. 7–10).

Further, import laws and license restrictions of practically all European countries indicate a record of either import licenses and/or permits. In each instance these countries have complete and rigid control over all imports which may damage or aid in damaging of any industry considered vital and necessary to the foreign nation's scientific and technological progress, health, economy, and national defense, i. e., key industries, and, practically all European nations consider scientific instruments, apparatus, and equipment vital to the country's existence.

In the case of the sterling bloc, for instance, the Commonwealth regulation gives preference to the United Kingdom. As study after study will show, United States tariff laws are many times more liberal and equitable than most highly restrictive licenses and permits of other countries.

4. Ibidem (1).

5. Manufacturers have tried in various ways to learn what the physics teachers want, but they have been unable to discover any pronounced trend toward any particular new items. In a recent questionnaire distributed and compiled by the committee on scientific apparatus for educational institutions, American Association of Physics Teachers, more than 223 different suggestions by physics teachers were made. The important point to remember in studying the results of the recent American Association of Physics Teachers' survey is that no 1 piece of apparatus was requested by more than 10 different persons and almost none was mentioned by more than 5. It is difficult to imagine that American manufacturers of scientific instruments-what with one of the highest pay scales in American industry, can go into action on the production of such "new" items when no more of a market for the product is evidenced than has been recently shown by the results of the teachers' own survey (exhibit IX).

However, the record will show that the American Association of Physics Teachers' committee asked to make a study of what specific standard items are needed in their teaching and the manufacturers of such apparatus, instruments, and equipment are waiting for these results from the committee so that manufacturers may cooperate with the physics teachers.

6. The reason for the lack of a number of manufacturers and/or suppliers in the field of scientific instruments and equipment is based upon the practical sterility of the market insofar as the physics teaching equipment, per se, is concerned.