Answer 5(a). Under the bill as now written, many foreign organizations could make changes, additions or deletions with impunity. The U.S. law can protect uses and integrity of data only in the U.S. Further, a foreign organization, not having composition and promotion costs, could produce an offset edition from the U.S. edition that would be much lower in price than the U.S. edition, and would preempt the foreign markets. Such an offset edition might even be exported to the U.S. with impunity, because there seems to be nothing in the bill that prohibits the importation of copies of the data produced legally abroad. In fact, this lack of protection against cheaply-reproduced foreign editions could make the production of U.S. commercial editions very unattractive, if not impossible.

Answer 5(b). Yes. U.S. copyright would give protection in all major countries of the world except the U.S.S.R. and Red China through the Universal Copyright Convention which gives automatic reciprocal copyright. A license would be required to reprint the copyrighted work in any foreign country, and the terms of the license agreement could protect both the substance and form of every reprint abroad. In fact, copyright is the only practicable way in which such protection can be obtained. The copyright does not have to be taken out by the Government; it can be taken out by the private publisher and assigned back to the Government agency or controlled by the Government agency by contract.

Question 6. Is a commercial publisher capable of marketing standard reference data in the form of computer types or cards?

Anwser 6. Yes. Several commercial publishers have this capability and others could readily develop it.

Question 7. In the normal situation where a commercial publisher publishes a document for a Federal agency, does the agency receive a royalty on sales or the use of a certain number of copies, or both? Please discuss and give examples if possible.

Answer 7. In most cases royalty is paid directly into the U.S. Treasury rather than to the Federal agencies involved. In many cases the publishing contracts provide for specified numbers of further copies for Government use in addition to royalty payments. In other cases the contract provides for direct Government purchase at high rates of discount. In general publishers are flexible in contracting on terms that meet the particular needs of each separate case. In almost all cases the contracts require the publishers to sell the published works at stated prices, and in many cases the prices are fixed under competitive bidding. Below is a list of typical titles with a summary of the terms of royalty and allowances provided in each case.

"Atomic Energy Encyclopedia in the Life Sciences". Charles Wesley Shilling,

W. B. Saunders Co.

NOTE. On these the recent standard royalty rate paid to the Government has been 15 percent of list price and the AEC has received 200 to 250 free copies.

Question 8. What percentage of the total sales of standard reference data do you expect would be made to foreign purchasers if such publications were sold and distributed by a commercial publishing organization?

Answer 8. At least 50% of initial sales would be abroad and it might run as high as 60%. In recent years 78% of the sale of the International Critical Tables published by McGraw-Hill has been abroad. Although sales records for the earlier years of this publication (the 1920's and the 1930's) are not available, McGraw-Hill estimates that 55% to 60% of total sales have been export sales.

Question 9. In your testimony you raised an objection to the symbol or mark as proposed in the bill. Since the symbol or mark represents a definable standard of quality or care, would it be preferable in your opinion to place at the beginning of each publication what the symbol or mark represents in lieu of the symbol itself (perhaps in the form of a letter signed by the Director of the Bureau)?

(a) If this were done, would it involve fraud for a commercial publisher to republish the letter if the compilation were altered in such a way that the data no longer represented the same standards of quality?

Answer 9. In our opinion the title of the work and the name of the Bureau of Standards would be sufficient to label the work for quality, but a prefatory statement by the Director of the Bureau would be more explicit and thus desirable.

sel.

Answer 9(a). We think so, but this opinion is given without advice of coun

Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to recognize for just a few moments Mr. John F. Haley, staff director of the Joint Committee on Printing. Mr. Haley.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HALEY, STAFF DIRECTOR, JOINT

COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

Mr. HALEY. Thank you, Mr. Daddario. I am here at the direction of the vice chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, Mr. Burleson. I am especially happy to see Mr. Miller here because I was going to read a brief letter addressed to him, failing to know he would be here.

Mr. MILLER. If you had notified me, I would have been sure to be here, Mr. Haley.

Mr. HALEY. That would have been an imposition because the letter is so short.

Mr. DADDARIO. Our chairman is psychic about these things.

Mr. HALEY. The letter addressed to Chairman Miller of the Committee on Science and Astronautics reads as follows:

Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING,

June 30, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on Science and Astronautics,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to the bill H.R. 15638 on which hearings are currently being held before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics.

It is recognized that the scope of the referenced bill includes much more than printing from which the bill seeks relief from compliance with the provisions of U.S.C. Title 44. Nevertheless, it is obvious that substantial benefit to the broad objectives sought by the bill can be obtained by utilizing the composition capabilities of the Government Printing Office.

It is suggested that the assessment of testimony received by your committee be made by the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing and submitted for inclusion in your printed hearings. Said assessment shall be recognized as the policy position of the Joint Committee.

Sincerely,

[s] OMAR BURLESON,

Vice Chairman.

May I add that the assessment will be made by the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing and have the concurrence of the Public Printer and officials of the Government Printing Office when submitted.

Mr. DADDARIO. I do not quite understand what you intend to make an assessment of, Mr. Haley.

Mr. HALEY. The assessment will be made with appropriate consideration being given to the use of existing composition capabilities of the Government Printing Office and the potential use of the highspeed electronic composition system yet to come. Workshops are currently being attended by representatives of departments for programing input to the system. Also, the existing authority contained in title XV, chapter 23 of the United States Code, the legal authority under which the Commerce Clearinghouse operates, will be considered in the assessment. Effective utilization of services obtainable from the Government Printing Office can contribute much. to the achievement of the overall objectives desired by H.R. 15638. It may well be that assessment may show, Mr. Chairman, that composition and reproducibles could be supplied by GPO to the Bureau of Standards which would contract with commercial publishers to do the printing and distribution, if advantage over distribution by the Superintendent of Documents is obtainable thereby. Printing by appropriated funds is the mission of the Public Printer, until otherwise ordained by the wisdom of Congress.

Mr. DADDARIO. The assessment, then, would be directed to advising this committee as it makes its deliberations as to the capabilities now available within the Government Printing Office. These capabilities we shall consider together with presently established laws, before we come to final determination as to what should be done under the bill before us.

Mr. HALEY. You could not be more precise. I may add, there is a big investment in the electronic composition system being placed in the Government Printing Office. With this system the Government Printing Office will soon be able to handle the output from many computers and convert this output at high speed into pages of graphic arts quality for printing. Information can be updated for subsequent fast revised printings. No commercial printing or composition facility has equal capability. So our position will be, as you said, Mr. Chairman, of an advisory nature.

Mr. MILLER. I would welcome your evaluation of this for the committee. If you or Mr. Burleson earlier had spoken to me about it, we might have arranged to have you officially represented here to advise us in this field. When you and I had a discussion about the bill, you felt that the bill should have gone to your committee. I do not blame you for that. The Parliamentarian assigned it to us. I think that printing is the mechanical part of the work that will take place. We

are primarily interested in the data that will be developed through this system that will be available to printing.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, I do think that Mr. Haley's offer here is one which can be of great help.

Mr. MILLER. I am very happy to have it.

Mr. DADDARIO. We are pleased to have it, Mr. Haley, and we certainly will indicate this to Mr. Burleson.

Mr. MILLER. I would appreciate it if Mr. Felton would prepare a letter for my signature to Mr. Burleson expressing my thoughts on

this matter.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. OMAR BURLESON,

Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing,
The Capitol, Washington, D.C.

JULY 1, 1966.

DEAR MR. VICE CHAIRMAN: The committee will be pleased to receive the comments of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Public Printer concerning H.R. 15638, a bill to provide for the collection, compilation, critical evaluation, publication, and sale of standard reference data. As you are aware, the committee sent a letter to Mr. James L. Harrison, the Public Printer, on January 16, 1966, soliciting his comments on the bill.

It is the committee's understanding that the assessment of the testimony which you mention in your letter of June 30, 1966, will pertain to how the objectives of this bill might be better realized by utilizing the current and proposed composition capabilities of the Government Printing Office, and that this policy statement will be prepared in conjunction with the Public Printer and other officials in the Government Printing Office.

We appreciate your interest in H.R. 15638 and look forward to the statement. Sincerely yours,

GEORGE P. MILLER, Chairman.

Mr. HALEY. May I add, Mr. Chairman, I said if it were wholly a printing bill it would necessarily be directed by jurisdiction to the Subcommittee on House Administration. You said it was many things, included in which would be the copyright law as well as title 15. We did not feel we were altogether circumvented.

Mr. MILLER. Is this the first meeting you have attended? Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir; but our troops have been here every day. Mr. MILLER. This is the first day we have discussed printing to a large extent and how the charges should be levied.

Mr. HALEY. I am sure there will be assistance furnished in the Government Printing Office, however indirect, in connection with this proposal.

Mr. VIVIAN. I would be interested in having some information on whether other activities of the Government are furnished to serve some sector of our economy and whether such activities are handled in such a way as to return a significant faction of the cost back to the Government agency providing the service through the sale of publications. How many instances there are of this situation.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Haley, that can be provided?

Mr. HALEY. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Vivian has raised an interesting point.

(The information requested is as follows:)

The following excerpt is taken from the report on a study of the Federal printing program completed by the Joint Committee on Printing, January 25, 1966: