Mr. BROWN. I would differ with you only to this extent and I may be wrong in my conceptions. For example, take the function of the National Bureau of Standards with regard to the basic units of measurement. You put out data which involve the calibration of measurements of length, of time, of mass and so on. The National Bureau of Standards didn't invent any of these things. The standard and the method of determining it probably existed before the National Bureau of Standards did.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Let me make clear we did invent it. Let's take the case of the present method of measurement of time which uses a cesium clock. The basic standard of the second, which is based upon the frequency measurement of the cesium clock which the Bureau of Standards specifies as to the basic measurement that will be used for all scientific measure in the United States, and in fact now the worldDr. ASTIN. Tentatively, the world.

Dr. HOLLOMON (continuing). Has been developed in part, in very large part, by the Bureau of Standards. It is now working on a method to improve the measurement of frequency and time by methods which are different than that of the cesium clock. One of its consequences will be a very much greater accuracy in the determination of orbits of space vehicles, for example.

If that becomes the standard, the person who specifies that is the standard for the United States is the head of the Bureau of Standards. Mr. BROWN. I won't argue this point. Nevertheless, you are still talking about the basic units of measurement. What we are moving into here is the application of the basic units of measurement to determine the secondary properties of everything in the universe.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That part of the universe which you can characterize. It is a narrow part of the universe.

Mr. BROWN. In effect, this is the whole field of science, and you are going to bring a system and order to it at the Bureau of Standards. Dr. HOLLOMON. To the numerical values.

Mr. BROWN. Numerical values is all science is.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Not quite. I think you speak to a very important point. What we are trying to do is to provide in this vast area of data that they are self-consistent and that they are as available as can be. We are not trying in any way to impose anything on the people who wish to make the measurements.

Mr. BROWN. I still think that you are moving into the entire field of science and I am not criticizing it or saying it is good or bad. I am saying this is what you are doing.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I really think, Mr. Brown, that the organic act of the Bureau of Standards already put it there.

Mr. BROWN. I disagree with you because the organic act says now, and this is on the first page of Dr. Astin's statement, in paragraph 19, that you will compile and publish general scientific and technical data and so forth and the last clause "*** are not available elsewhere." Now all of the material, that you are proposing to compile, is assumed to be available elsewhere, and you are going to evaluate it.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is right.

Mr. BROWN. I am not sure doing that falls within the mandate which you have now which says "are not available elsewhere." I think we

are getting to the crux of the problem here, that you are going to expand the mandate of the Bureau considerably. Again, I reiterate I am not saying this is good or bad.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I believe the Congress should make this decision since this kind of service by the National Bureau of Standards, which is specified in section 4, to provide for more effective integration and so forth, is something which to some degree enlarges the function of the Bureau of Standards.

I would, however, also say that the organic act states that the compilation and publication of general scientific and technical data resulting from the performance of the functions specified herein, or what have you, lies within the authority of the Bureau of Standards.

We do believe, however, that just as the Bureau of Standards has the responsibility to insure the basic measurement system and other responsibilities in its act, that the Congress should authorize the full extension to the process of the critical evaluation of scientific and technical data. I think that is an extension of the responsibility of the Bureau of Standards. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown raises an extremely important point that this bill is in a sense an elongation of the power. This comes about not because the data is available elsewhere; but because it is in such condition that it is not as useful as it should be; and because it cannot be done anywhere except within the Government. Furthermore, the Bureau of Standards has been chosen as the agency which can best do the job.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I think you state it well. Our feeling is it is not the question of the fact that the data exists, but the fact of the matter that it is not readily useful and available.

Second, the reason for the choice of the Bureau of Standards is that the degree of accuracy and the responsiveness and integrity of the Bureau of Standards in its normal functions give it the technical people and the viewpoint which no other agency of the Government has so far as I know.

Mr. BROWN. This was my original point, that what is being done by this legislation is to bring system and order, to what is admittedly chaos, throughout the whole field of science.

Dr. HOLLOMON. The whole field of scientific measurement, that is correct.

Mr. BROWN. All right, the whole field of scientific measurement. Dr. HOLLOMON. If you add that, I am with you.

Mr. BROWN. There is an area of scientific philosophy which is excluded. Now the point that is significant is, Does the scientific community realize what is being done? Is there any significant divergence of opinion among the responsible spokesmen for the scientific community that this is the proper way to create this order and system in an area which badly needs it?

Dr. HOLLOMON. I can't speak for everybody. There are some disagreements concerning these questions which Mr. Conable and Mr. Mosher raised, with regard to the interpretation of what we mean by the mark and the copyright or what have you. I don't want to argue that point at the moment.

Mr. DADDARIO. You can add Mr. Vivian to the list.

Dr. HOLLOMON. If you let me have that exception, as far as I know, the need for a system of providing the process of getting standard reference data to the scientists and engineers of this country is generally accepted. We have been pressed very hard about it. I think I can safely say, that the scientific community, the President's Science Advisory Committee, the Federal Council, the American Chemical Society, and so forth, believe that this would be a helpful and appropriate function of the National Bureau of Standards. I don't want to go so far as to say everybody agrees with everything in this piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWN. As a liberal Democrat, I am becoming more and more sour with the idea of the Federal Government having total power in every field, because I see too many unfortunate situations arising therefrom. However, I don't want to use that as a criticism of this particular proposal, because this may well be the best way to approach this problem.

Mr. CONABLE. I would like to associate myself with most of Mr. Brown's remarks.

Dr. HOLLOMON. In my view this is being helpful to the scientific community in performing the service which I frankly don't see how else it can be performed.

Dr. ASTIN. The American Chemical Society took a poll of its membership on this problem a year or so ago and got a very good response. There was near unanimity in these responses from the members of the American Chemical Society that this is a program that the Federal Government, and specifically the National Bureau of Standards, had to get into.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Vivian.

Mr. VIVIAN. I have a series of questions. I would like to say first that there is a great deal of agreement among the scientific people that some extensive operation by the Bureau of Standards is desirable and necessary. I don't think there is any question about that.

Also, I do think it is true that the Bureau of Standards has probably drifted away from the exact phraseology quoted in Dr. Astin's paper on the first page: "where such data are of importance and are not available elsewhere." I think it is probably true that you have, in fact, produced and tabulated data, which is available elsewhere, in a form that is far more satisfactory. I think perhaps the phraseology in the first part of this act which authorizes actions throughout without the reference "where not available elsewhere" is as useful to national purposes as the old phraseology.

If we went through this bill paragraph by paragraph, what new capability do you have?

Dr. HOLLOMON. I believe section 4 is new.

Mr. VIVIAN. Are you implying that sections 1, 2, and 3 are not new? Dr. HOLLOMON. No. Section 1 states a declaration of policy. Section 2 is a series of definitions. Section 3, I believe, is clarification and extension. By this, I mean it makes it implicit that this is a function. This goes to Mr. Brown's point. It further insists, as a procedural matter, that this be done in cooperation and nonduplication, which I think is desirable.

Mr. VIVIAN. You are not changing the world as it now exists?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Section 4 in my view is new. We have not that responsibility, and I believe that it is new.

Mr. VIVIAN. This allows the Secretary to provide criteria for the publication by anybody else of standard reference data?

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct.

Mr. VIVIAN. Anybody else?

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct.

Mr. VIVIAN. You can prohibit the issuance of material by the Department of Defense?

Dr. HOLLOMON. No. The only thing we can say is it has to go through a process if it is to have that stamp.

Mr. VIVIAN. If it is to have a standard reference label?

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct.

Mr. VIVIAN. That label is a definition now which has a copyright context to it?

Dr. HOLLOMON. It has some of the characteristics of a copyright. Mr. VIVIAN. In other words, the words "Standard Reference Data" cannot ever be used?

Dr. HOLLOMON. No, the stamp, an imprint, an imprint designed for cognitive purposes.

Mr. VIVIAN. What is the next new section?

Dr. HOLLOMON. The next new section is section 5. It has to do with the degree of recovery.

Mr. VIVIAN. It seems to me section 5 does not have to do with the degree of recovery. The first part of section 5 through line 16 deals with whether or not you have to go through the Government Printing Office.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct.

Mr. VIVIAN. You presume it will still go through the Government Printing Office and still get a different recovery?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes.

Mr. VIVIAN. There are two requirements here?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Exactly.

Mr. VIVIAN. The two don't have to be necessarily together?

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is right. And this authority gives us authority to contract.

Mr. VIVIAN. Why is it necessary to change the laws relating to the Government Printing Office? Why should you go outside the Government Printing Office?

Dr. HOLLOMON. There are two aspects of the problem. One is the question of recovering user charges.

Mr. VIVIAN. I want to avoid that question right now.

Dr. HOLLOMON. That is one of them.

Mr. VIVIAN. Yes, sir.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I can't avoid it and answer your question. That is one of the reasons.

Mr. VIVIAN. Yes.

Dr. HOLLOMON. The second reason is that we believe, as I tried to answer Mr. Mosher, that it is appropriate in some instances and can be more effective to permit private publication of such compilations.

Mr. VIVIAN. Why isn't that true of the thousands of other things the Government prints? For example, how about agricultural pamphlets?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Mr. Vivian, I will try to answer a question with respect to these compilations.

Mr. VIVIAN. But the question is not only relevant to these publications.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I understand that. I am not trying to avoid the question. I have some feelings about these other matters, but I am not an expert in these other publications.

Mr. CONABLE. Nor is the Department of Agriculture within the proper cognizance of this act.

Dr. HOLLOMON. You may have some views on this, and it may be a very interesting question, but we believe there is a special reasonlet's take the case that Dr. Astin spoke of. Suppose there is needed supplementary data to a particular private publication. If we wanted to make a supplement in the field, wouldn't it be appropriate to go to that publisher to see whether or not an appropriate arrangement could be made to issue a supplement through his standard distribution channels?

Mr. VIVIAN. It seems to me the question of whether all Government publications should go through the Government Printing Office at all is itself a question, because there are pretty stringent laws already existing requiring that they be published through the Government Printing Office.

Mr. DADDARIO. If you would yield, the example you have given, Dr. Hollomon, the means to get that done seems already to be available to

Dr. HOLLOMON. If we did all that work under contract, that would be so. But if the work happened to be done in the Bureau of Standards

Mr. FELTON. I thought most of this work was going to be done outof-house by experts in the field.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Both. We intend to do both. It depends on whether we have the expertise. Other Government agencies can do likewise. For example, AEC does certain publications that meet their criteria and some are printed privately at this time.

Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to say something for Mr. Vivian. I think his questions are excellent-help us put our thoughts together. He indicated yesterday a very strong support for the basic purposes of this bill. There is no antagonism.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I understand that. I don't mean to try to avoid the issue. I only say I don't think I should testify here on the general problems associated with all the things that the Government Printing Office does.

Mr. MILLER. If the gentleman may yield, he may not know it but another committee is taking great exception to this bill because it has charge of printing says it is nothing but a printing bill. This is far from a printing bill. They are the committee that can put the type together, talk about what kind of ink should be used and where they should get the paper. Since the contents are beyond that committee, the bill is in our committee.

Dr. HOLLOMON. There is another presently modest, and perhaps crucial, part of this particular section which I think will become increas