matter in the Senate committee and there was no debate on the Senate floor on the matter. However, it is our belief that so far as copyrights are concerned, the inclusion of this provision in this bill and any other bill in which it is introduced would defeat the purposes of the Government in the dissemination of research on which Federal money is expended.

We feel this because whether the publishing house is a nonprofit journal, a university press, or a commercial publisher, ordinarily the publishing organization will not wish to publish something for which it does not have copyright protection. With copying machines as common as they are now, a chapter of such a work could be copied around the world by industrial corporations and completely destroy the market for the publication.

The result would be to throw back onto the Government a large volume of publication which is now carried on privately either by nonprofit organizations such as university presses or commercial publishers.

If Government publication were done by way of mimeographed reports and that kind of thing, distribution would be rather inadequate. The same would be true if the publication were through the Government Printing Office which does not have facilities for effective distribution of works through the normal channels of bookstores, mailing lists, salesmen, and so forth.

We feel that this is a subject which ought not to be handled piecemeal on individual bills but considered in connection with the general revision of the copyright law which is being considered at this very moment in hearings before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee, chairman of which is the Honorable Edwin E. Willis, of Indiana.

We would urge, therefore, that that committee be allowed to consider this aspect of copyright revision as well as all others and that the word "copyright" and "copyrights" be deleted from section 204 (c) of this bill.

Your committee might wish to ask the opinion of the copyright office on this particular provision of the bill because we understand that the copyright office was not consulted before the Senate committee introduced this provision in the bill before you.

I would like to have my complete statement put into the record. I think this gives the gist of the argument.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You may have your statement included in the record in full. And we appreciate your testimony and your calling to our attention the importance of this provision. I have some concern over it myself. It will be given consideration as the committee considers this entire problem.

Mr. FRASE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being with us today.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Frase follows:)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT W. FRASE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL AND THE AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE

My name is Robert W. Frase and I am director of the joint Washington office of the American Book Publishers Council and the American Textbook Publishers Institute. These are the two trade associations in the book publishing field

vas mandership accounts for over 95 percent of the volume of book heuntry. The institute membership is made up of firms pubx all kinds, reference books, educational tests and maps. The publishes all other types of books including general or trade kx, scientific and technical books, religious books, paperbound x published by university presses and publishing departments of

CYPYRIGHT PROVISIONS OF S. 306, SECTION 204 (C)

ee my remarks to the inclusion of the words "copyrights" and section 204 (c) of S. 306-amendments to the Clean Air and Solid sposal Acts as it passed the Senate on May 18, 1965. We recommend he words "copyrights" and "copyright" be struck from this section of the ecause they involve a complicated subject which is now being considered in Cody hearings before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Committee on the diciary under the chairmanship of Representative Edwin E. Willis. Mr. Willis subcommittee is considering H.R. 4347, a bill for the general revision of the copyright law, introduced by Chairman Celler of the Judiciary Committee and drafted by the copyright office of the Library of Congress.

Section 204(e) was included in S. 306 in Senate committee without invitation to interested individuals or organizations to testify or submit prepared statements, and without securing a report from the copyright office. The Senate committee report on the bill (S. Rpt. 192) merely describes section 204 (c) but does not indicate any reason for including it. There was no discussion of this section on the Senate floor when the bill was being debated on May 18.

I shall not attempt to discuss in detail the effects which would follow from the inclusion of the words "copyrights" and "copyright" in section 204 (c). I would, however, like to repeat briefly the substance of testimony on this subject which was presented to the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on May 20 by Mr. W. B. Wiley, president of the American Textbook Publishers Institution, in connection with a similar proposed amendment to S. 600, the Higher Education Act of 1965.

We have had some exploratory discussions on this amendment and we understand that its intended effect so far as copyrights are concerned would be approximately as follows: materials resulting in whole or in part from Government science and technology research and development grants and contracts could be copyrighted. In other countries the American copyright owner would enjoy all the usual rights. In the United States, however, anyone would have a blanket license to reproduce and use the material without limitation. In other words, for all practical purposes the material would be in the public domain in the United States.

Section 204 (c) with the word "copyrights” retained will have the following effects on the publication of research and development results in areas covered by any bill to which it is appended:

(1) It will reduce the publication of research results and thus limit dissemination.

(2) It will increase the cost to the Government of whatever dissemination is made.

(3) It will tend to defeat the purpose of Federal research and development expenditures by limiting the audience to which these results will be made known.

(4) It will transfer publishing activity from the private sector of the economy (both profit and nonprofit) to the Federal Government. There is one basic reason why these results will flow from the Long amendment if copyright is ineffective on material resulting in whole or in part from Government research expenditures. Publishing organizations-whether commercial firms or nonprofit university presses, or professional societies publishing journals-will ordinarily not find it economically feasible to publish without the copyright protection which constitutes their only title to the literary property. If a university press or a publishing house specializing in scientific and technical books should be offered a book by a physicist who has had some Government research grants, it would in many cases be necessary to refuse if copyright was not obtainable. Books of this kind are ordinarily published in very small editions because of the limited market, and therefore have to be priced quite high. If this small market should be further reduced by lack of copyright protection the price might become so high as to make the whole project uneconomic.

This reduction in the market might very well result if major corporations, for example, could make multiple copies of the book or copy portions thereof without permission or payment. The market for a normal 2,000-copy edition might thus shrink to half or less and the $10 price jump to $25. On books of this kind which incorporation advance research results, the cost of typesetting is controlling, and these costs must be met regardless of the number of copies sold. If the market is too small the typesetting cost will make the whole edition impossible.

In a case like this, with non-Government publication out of the question for lack of copyright protection, the Government agency responsible for the research grants would have three alternatives, none of them very satisfactory. It could take a few typewritten copies of the professor's research reports produced under the grants and endeavor to distribute these to a few key people, allowing the more comprehensive book to remain unpublished. Or it could subsidize the cost of publishing by a private or university press publisher, permitting the price to be set at the normal $10 a copy, but making up the difference between that price and the actual cost of $25 per copy. Or it could publish the book through the Government Printing Office, paying the high price of the total cost of the limited small edition and getting an inferior job of distribution. Government Printing Office books are not generally handled by bookstores, are not advertised, and are frequently not even reviewed in the appropriate professional journals.

SUMMARY

Although the inclusion of the words "copyrights" and "copyright" in section 204 (c) of S. 306 might at first glance appear to be equitable and in the public interest, it would in practice defeat the purposes of Government in making public funds available for research and development. It would make the results of such research expenditure less, rather than more, available to the public. It would also tend to socialize-turn over to the Government-a large area of private endeavor, both profit and nonprofit.

We would therefore urge that your committee not attempt to deal piecemeal with copyright questions in this bill but leave that subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, which has primary jurisdiction, and which is at this very time holding hearings on H.R. 4347, a general copyright revision bill.

The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the hearings for this morning and the committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, 1965.)

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

In view of the number of witnesses we have this morning, I think that we will start the hearings. Other members will be along later, I am advised.

Scheduled as the first witness will be a representative of the Department of the Interior, Mr. Max N. Edwards, Assistant to the Secretary and Legislative Representative of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Edwards, you may present your statement for the Department. Mr. EDWARDS. The Secretary of the Interior regrets very much, Mr. Chairman, that he is not able to be here in person this morning, because he has a very strong interest in the legislation which the committee is considering.

The CHAIRMAN. I regret that we are deprived of the pleasure of having him here this morning. Will you tell him that? Mr. EDWARDS. I shall do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAX M. EDWARDS, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY AND LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL; ACCOMPANIED BY JOE B. ROSENBAUM, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS RESEARCH, BUREAU OF MINES; HARRY PERRY, DIVISION OF COAL RESEARCH, BUREAU OF MINES; AND DAVID B. FINNEGAN, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I have with me Mr. David B. Finnegan, Mr. Harry Perry, who is the Director of the Division of Coal Research of the Bureau of Mines, Mr. Joe Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Assistant Director of the Minerals Research of the Bureau of Mines.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you here with us.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of legislation which will help us in reducing or eliminating some of the pollutants that adversely affect