and I think it is largely the element of funds, and I am sure you understand the risks that go with accepting Government funds. You are looking to have broader participation along the line of Mr. Vivian's questions, more representation for consumers and other things.

Mr. PEYTON. I think the United States has a committee going to Tel Aviv next month to an international technical meeting. There are a number of people who should be at the meeting. We have some university people who have no funds of their own. This is a 2- or 3week trip. It involves technical people and industry supports this thing to a great extent. They are virtually carrying the load. We should be able to attract to these national committees and to international standards-making bodies the talent that is necessary without having to go out and almost passing the hat to find travel money for them.

I believe there have been instances where the United States has passed up the opportunity to be the secretariat or the coordinating function of an international committee simply because we could not raise the money to support this thing adequately, or we have found ourselves in the position where we have had to go back for more money.

Mr. McCUNE. Again, let me go back to nuclear standards where I happen to be chairman and know more about it than some of the others. There are quite a number of projects going on and as a matter of fact we are the secretariat for the ISO in the nuclear standards

area.

Now, those people give their time. There is a tremendous amount of research and development that is done by industry and by the Government, the Atomic Energy Commission, that isn't counted at all, and after doing all this, it would be nice to be in a position each time we have a meeting to have the right people go and we also need more secretarial help. When you are dealing with people from all nations and you are trying to establish and get agreements to what projects should go forward, there is a tremendous amount of just expediting the paperwork to do. In our present budget we have a small fraction. We are not able to do these things as we would like.

On the other hand, I don't want to leave you with the impression we don't support these things. This is not an easy job.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Could the usage of standard diminish the quality of any product that you can think of? Is there a danger here?

Mr. McCUNE. If you try to standardize a product you get into deep trouble. As long as I use the things I make and you use the things you make, we don't need any standards. But as soon as we start using each other's things, we have got to have some standard. The first thing we need is language. The first standards are definitions. Normally following such things as definitions you go on to test methods. No test method is absolutely precise, but we agree how we are going to test it. Your test method is next.

And the third thing that comes up is interchangeability and safety. Both of these in a sense degrade a product to some extent because if everything is to be constantly interchangeable, this does stop progress. On the other hand, we would be in a terrible mess if every lamp bulb had a different screw base. It is only through standards that we get that.

On the other hand, you would have better plugs if we didn't have a standard. This is a compromise and this is one of the difficult things in making of standards.

Very often, if you try to standardize a whole product you make a great mistake because you stop right there.

Mr. ROUSH. What is the result of participation in these various international committees?

Mr. McCUNE. Long term, better position in world trade.

Mr. ROUSH. Do you think it will materially affect our position in world trade?

par

Mr. McCUNE. This all depends on your definition of material. A lot of our world trade today is in products like wheat and I don't think we are going to affect our trade in wheat by standards. This is ticularly true as our world trade goes to a smaller percentage of raw materials and more into highly sophisticated goods, which is the way it is going, I hope.

Mr. ROUSH. Is the USASI a nonprofit organization?

Mr. McCUNE. Yes.

Mr. ROUSH. And you are chartered under the laws of what State? Mr. McCUNE. State of New York.

Mr. ROUSH. I observe that you make reference, in at least two places in your statement, of the purpose of the institute; that is, to act as the national coordinating institution.

Now, aren't there other institutions doing the same work?

Mr. McCUNE. This is a little difficult to answer. For example, the IEEE is international in scope. It takes in Canada and its membership and it has many standards.

The American Society for Testing and Materials is a truly national organization and issues many, many standards.

Nevertheless, these organizations many years ago recognized that by themselves if each chose to be the national association in its own field, chaos would result because the fields aren't like slices of pie. That need still exists and is here with the Institute and there are thousands of standards which have been processed through after being created by these national bodies and agreed, have been processed through again as American standards or now U.S. standards, and there are thousands that have never gone through this process. I think I am answering your question. There is a real need for a single place so there won't be conflicting standards and that was the origin of the association, and having people whose interests were represented and not a very thin segment of society like an institute of engineers, or an association of manufacturers, or a group of consumers, or a very thin segment. Let's have a little broader look at it. Mr. ROUSH. When we speak of the financial assistance which the Federal Government will give, and we run into this same question in other areas, do you feel that there might come about a reliance on this Federal assistance which would hinder your own fundraising activities to the point where eventually you would have a total reliance on Federal subsidy, or do you feel that this would stimulate private funding activity?

Mr. McCUNE. I tried to cover that in my testimony. I look to a time when this kind of Federal help would not be needed. That may be optimistic or it may not, but certainly the directors and the officers

presently would like to have it come out that way or most of us wouldn't be working on it. This is not a paid activity for us. Most of us would not be working on this thing unless we thought it would come out the way we thought it would. If we thought it would be something to be subsidized and wholly supported by the Government, there would be no reason for us to be working on it right now. I believe there are a lot of dedicated people around.

Mr. ROUSH. No doubt about it.

You have made reference to the term "commercial."
Mr. McCUNE. Yes.

Mr. ROUSH. Among the activities presently carried on by the ISO, are there activities which relate to areas which might be outside the definition of the term "commercial?" Is this a reason for your suggestion?

Mr. McCUNE. No. Frankly, the word "commercial" to me might be perfectly all right, but it turns out in talking to people who are engaged in standards activity that this word "commercial" has been used for a long time by many people interested in standards with the thought that that was a standard relating to a product and had nothing to do with a technical standard which might relate to a definition of measurement. The word "commercial" to these people is excluded. If you should use a broader term, make sure it is understood. It is the whole field of standards activities that is involved. You have a glossary of terms that could be used internationally. It is useful in commerce, but in these people's minds it isn't at all a commercial standard. My thought was, use a word that everybody would recognize, and particularly the people working in standards.

Mr. ROUSH. I think it is a suggestion which is well taken. Concerning the clearinghouse, it is my understanding of the language of the bill that the clearinghouse contemplated by it would be a Government operation. Is this also your understanding?

Mr. McCUNE. It is my understanding of the bill that if an institute like ours didn't qualify in the minds of the Department of Commerce that they would be authorized under this bill to go ahead and do it, but it is my understanding of the wording of the bill that if a qualified organization should get support to do it under the terms of this bill-I hope I understand you correctly. There is nothing in the bill which says they are going to turn the money over to any specific group of people or anything else.

On the other hand, in my opinion the best group to do this is the group which has done a great deal of work on these standards.

Mr. ROUSH. What is your opinion of a clearinghouse totally operated by the Government?

Mr. McCUNE. I wouldn't like to see it come out that way except in the case possibly of Government standards which often are procurement standards.

Mr. ROUSH. Section 2 of the bill states:

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized in cooperation with private United States standards organizations or bodies and appropriate state and Federal agencies, and others

Skipping subsection A and going to subsection B—

to establish and maintain a clearinghouse service for the benefit of producers, distributors, and so forth.

To me that clearly suggests a clearinghouse to be established and operated by the Government.

Mr. McCUNE. Well, as I have read the bill and maybe I haven't read it correctly, this would certainly authorize them to do it, but suppose they are to do it in cooperation, and so forth, then it would equally authorize them to contract for this.

I see great difficulty in your passing legislation to say that they have to put it with a given organization. That wouldn't be right either. You compete for it.

Mr. ROUSH. No; we couldn't be passing special legislation of this sort, and I am certain from the testimony of Assistant Secretary Hollomon yesterday that they would contemplate using the talent and the skills and abilities of the people already engaged in making standards and in setting up and operating such a clearinghouse, but it was also my impression that it would be a clearinghouse operated by the Department of Commerce.

Be that as it may, we are indebted to you for the contribution that you have made here today. There will be, I believe, certain questions which we may want to propound to you in writing at a later date, and if we could have your prompt reply to those inquiries, we would appreciate it.

I think it might also be helpful if at some time you give some attention to going over the testimony given by Congressman Dingell here this morning and make comment on some of these suggested changes he makes for this legislation. I think we might benefit from your views in that regard.

Mr. McCUNE. I would be glad to do so.
(The information requested is as follows:)

Hon. J. EDWARD ROUSH,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STANDARDS INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y., October 3, 1966.

House Committee on Science and Astronautics,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROUSH: On behalf of the USA Standards Institute and personally, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear and testify before your subcommittee on H.R. 17424 and H.R. 17598.

During the hearing you asked for the Institute's comments on the statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, particularly with respect to the small business and antitrust aspects of standardization.

I would like to comment on Mr. Dingell's statement that a public agency is "best qualified to pass on matters of standardization * * *." I doubt that it is

the intent of the legislation to lodge sole jurisdiction over standards in either the public or private sectors. In fact, standardization is the province of both, and complete cooperation must exist between government and voluntary standards-making organizations.

Standards which affect commerce should be developed by voluntary organizations, coordinating their efforts through the USA Standards Institute. There will be other standards, however, for government purchasers which may well be developed by government agencies. It is rarely, if ever, an either/or proposition. In most instances the work is done by voluntary organizations in cooperation with government agencies.

We agree with Congressman Dingell that consumers, users, distributers, and the general public, should be represented in standards development. This is primarily what the procedures of the Institute assure, and have assured throughout the 48-year history of the American Standards Association. No standard is approved as a "USA Standard" unless all parties at interest were represented or given an opportunity to participate in the development. Small

69-452-66- 5

business, as well as large, is represented in virtually every board and committee of the Institute. Our Constitution and Bylaws assure the continuation of this practice.

Turning to the antitrust aspects, as I mentioned in my testimony, it would be an impossible administrative burden to require Justice Department's approval of all new standards. In addition, the delays that would necessarily occur would make most standards meaningless and eventually mean the end of the standards movement. Timeliness is of utmost importance in standardization. It does no one any good to reach agreement on a particular item, such as interchangeability of components, if the standard cannot be developed in time for the product to be marketed.

What is essential is that the procedures by which standards are developed be such as to make restraint of trade or monopolization impossible. This is reflected in the Institute's Constitution and Bylaws. These have been developed with full understanding that the Department of Justice would have opportunity to comment officially before a Federal charter for the Institute would be legislated.

By assuring itself that action which brings about antitrust violations is not possible under the procedure of the USA Standards Institute, the Justice Department can fully protect the public interest without being held responsible for approval of the thousands of standards developed each year.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee We will be pleased to answer any specific questions you may have.

Sincerely,

FRANCIS K. McCUNE,
Vice President, USASI.

Mr. ROUSH. We would also seriously consider the suggestions you have made. We will have our own counsel go over them.

We will also submit them to the appropriate governmental agencies for their comments, and hopefully we can come up with something here that will serve a useful purpose in a very complex situation in the commercial world, the technical world in which we live today.

Thank you again, gentlemen, for appearing here today.
The committee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the committee adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 22, 1966.)