ment Dr. Eads made in regard to the way in which he is tackling the job. I think this is a very sound approach. Senator TUNNEY. I have one last question, or maybe two questions. That is, do you feel that there is a legitimate role for the Government to play in the supplementation of industry efforts in R. & D. in materials, in view of the fact that the need for research cuts across industry lines in a way that society can benefit from it, and if there is such a need, are you satisfied with the existing structure that we have in Government where we have at least 23 Federal agencies through 90 different subdivisions involved in funding materials R. & D.? Mr. STRAUSS. Well, I have to admit of course that as an individual and a taxpayer, I find this very distressing. But like "Topsy," it just grew because each of these agencies was created in response to a specific need. I think here again the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages can have some very significant input. I would like to reinforce what Professor Brooks said regarding the particular capabilities in regard to standards, specifications, and so forth of the National Bureau of Standards. I think the concept of involving the National Science Foundation is a sound one. In our field, which is that problem of insuring that we are as nearly self-sufficient as it is economically desirable for us to be, the U.S. Geological Survey plays an enormous role. I would be very sorry to see any one of those three organizations on your destruct list, because I think they are all three very effective organizations that work very well with private industry. Senator TUNNEY. I don't want to pin you down, but I don't think you answered the question. You did say the National Commission is good, but the National Commission is really designed to study whether or not we do in fact need such an organization. Mr. STRAUSS. What I am saying is, considering the composition of the National Commission and its goals that Dr. Eads set forth today, I would have a great deal of confidence in what their response to the questions you have addressed to me would be much more confidence than I would have in my own response-since I am not a scientist and therefore less competent to deal with questions of research and development. Senator TUNNEY. In 1973 the National Commission on Materials Policy found that there was a tremendous opportunity to stretch the available supply of raw materials in this country by eliminating corrosion. They indicated that corrosion costs approximately $15 billion a year. GAO's study, made available yesterday to us, indicated a properly balanced Federal materials R. & D. program can not be undertaken without knowledge of what the private sector is doing. What is the private sector doing? Mr. STRAUSS. Well, there are very many corrosion combatting materials. For example, the largest single use of zinc is for galvanizing, to coat steel to combat corrosion. This has been going on for many years. The techniques are being improved continuously, and there is now a continuous galvanizing process the steel companies use which puts a thinner coat on, but a more impervious coat of zinc over the steel and it works extremely well. One of the curious aspects of this concern about corrosion which I have run into was at a recent seminar at Resources for the Future, in which I took part. One of the economists present said under no conditions should materials such as lead and zinc be used as pigments, because there is no opportunity of recycling the lead or zinc. This is understandable, and it is true that pigments cannot be recycled. But if you don't use zinc dust for example to undercoat a car, you will have more corrosion, so there again it is the cost and benefit problem that I referred to. Generally speaking corrosion is very costly to industry and for that reason industry is maximizing its efforts to combat corrosion. The Alaska Pipeline is a good example 400 miles plus of pipeline stretched across that arid country is all going to be protected from corrosion by the galvanic action of zinc anodes which will be applied to that pipeline throughout its entire length. Industry is doing quite a lot. I won't say we can't do more, but we have a strong incentive on this, simply because it is very costly to industry. Senator TUNNEY. I want to thank you very much for being with us. As always, it is a pleasure to listen to you. This concludes this series of hearings on these two bills, S. 1410 and 1415. The hearing record will be open until January 16, 1976, if anyone wants to comment on any statements made or add any material. [Thereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the hearing was concluded.] ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGICAL, Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Commerce, U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Last March we responded to your inquiry seeking advice on the "Products and Materials Shortages Research and Development Act of 1974," S. 4051, which was sent to The Metallurgical Society of AIME for comment. We now understand that S. 1410 and S. 1415 are to be considered on December 2, 1975. We have been made aware that these two bills cover the same areas as S. 4051, as well as minerals information, data collection and analysis. We would like to reiterate our position of last March; that is, for. many decades federal governmental research and conservation, minerals information, data collection and analysis in the minerals field have been carried on by the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Mines. Dividing these mineral responsibilities would likely lead to duplicate programs, greater delays and less efficiency. We cannot advise that a new federal research agency in the mineral resources field be legislated. We do not believe that this proposed legislation would advance the technology of developing and producing new mineral resources. Therefore, we advise that the provisions of acts such as S. 1410 and S. 1415 should specifically exclude minerals and materials manufactured from minerals. We hope that this advice is helpful to you and that you will permit us to continue to comment on other mineral and energy legislative policy matters coming to your attention. Sincerely, JAMES D. REILLY, President. Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, SOCIETY OF MINING ENGINEERS OF AIME, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Commerce, Com.mittee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Last March we joined our parent organization, the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., in responding to an inquiry seeking advice on the Products and Materials Shortages Research and Development Act of 1974, "S4051." At that time, it was our collective advice that the definitions included in "S4051" be altered to remove the applicability of the bill to mineral resources and to materials manufactured from minerals so as to avoid duplication with activities that historically have been effectively accomplished within the Department of Interior's Bureau of Mines. It was our understanding that before resubmission the bill would be revised to accommodate this advice. However, we are informed that bills "S1410" and "S1415", to be considered by your subcommittee on December 2, 1975, perpetuate this potential for duplication and waste. We repeat our advice of last March, based upon a conviction that implementation of the definitions as now stated, because of this overlap with proven and existing capability, would be counterproductive to the announced purposes of both "S1410" and "S1415." We recommend an amendment to the definitions and suggest that someone involved in the minerals field assist in developing the needed changes. We are prepared to recommend such expert assistance from among our membership. We continue ready to provide advice and assistance upon your call. Sincerely, BELL LABORATORIES, Senator WARREN G. Magnuson, Washington, D.C. Murray Hill, N.J., December 17, 1975. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The following is in response to your invitation to comment on the bills (S. 1410, S. 1415 and Staff Working Draft of S. 1415) your Committee is considering that relate to materials information systems and materials research and development. Without attempting to compare the provisions of the three bills, some general comments on materials information systems can be made. There is no doubt in my mind that some improvement in our ability to collect, evaluate, and use materials information is required. At the same time, it is equally clear that the exact nature of an efficient and optimal system is not readily apparent; the quality of present systems has not been assessed, the identification of the users of a new system needs to be made, and the critical data these users will seek to obtain from the system must be determined. Under such circumstances it is certain that any attempt to create in one step a complete and comprehensive system will result in substantial waste of financial resources. Thus sums of the magnitude suggested in the Staff Working Draft of S. 1415 (Sec. 208) could not in my opinion, be wisely spent at this time in a time interval anything like that suggested. Much more developmental approach is required, I would suggest. If a Council on Materials Management is created, or some other body is charged with the materials information function, this Council or body could be given responsibility for a more gradual buildup of a materials information system. This would begin with a careful assessment of user needs and a coordination of existing systems; followed by an upgrading of, and commonality for, data bases; and, finally, the design and development of a new information system. Such a program would require at least three years, I would think. The availability of data is of course an important question, as much of the data would have to come from private sources and is considered by them to be of a proprietary nature. The Bureau of Mines already obtains much valuable information, of course. It would be in the national interest to extend the quality and quantity of the data it receives, but every effort should be made to protect the privacy of data from individual sources. The Bureau of Mines has a good record in this respect, but precautions of the kind suggested in S. 1410 may be desirable, depending upon industry views of the sensitivity of the data it will be required to furnish. In the Staff Working Draft of S. 1415 (Sec. 204) it is proposed that the Council, through its information system capability, develop models for specific sectors of the economy, and that the information system "utilize appropriate models". I believe this places a greater expectation on the state of the art in modeling than is justified. In my opinion, an information system should only be concerned with data and their availability (i.e. retrieval), not with numbers derived from poorly understood models. I would recommend the deletion of reference to modeling. Title I, establishing a Council on Materials Management, seems to me to be a generally good plan, given the modifications in Title II suggested above. I particularly support the annual report called for in Section 206. Title III of the Staff Working Draft would establish in the Department of Commerce a responsibility for coordination and for research and development. The Coordinating Committee (Sec. 304) is much like the present coordinating committee for materials that has been established by the Federal Council for Science and Technology; this committee is chaired by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. I am strongly in favor of such a coordinating committee and indeed expressed myself along these lines to Dr. Stever when the reorganized Federal Council was assessing its functions, a year or two ago. Perhaps it would be well to etablish such a committee by law, to avoid its present dependence on the Federal Council. The remainder of Title III, calling for a research and development program administered by Commerce, deserves strong support, I believe. Sincerely yours, N. B. HANNAY, Vice President, Research and Patents. To: Senate Commerce Committee. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, D.C., December 30, 1975. From: Franklin P. Huddle, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology. In response to the letter of November 24 from the Chairman of the Committee I am sending you the attached analysis, with a few suggestions as to people with special qualifications to comment on the bill. If I can be of further assistance please let me know. SOME COMMENTS ON STAFF WORKING DRAFT OF S. 1415, NOVEMBER 12 This draft appears to conform generally with the recommendations of both the Paley Commission of 1952 and the National Commission on Materials Policy of 1973, with the exception that the latter report called for a "Department of Natural Resources" to serve as both policy making and policy implementing agency. However, both reports recommended a high level institution to monitor materials trends and recommend public policy responses. It might serve a useful purpose to call attention in the Findings of Congress (Sec. 2) to the fact that adequate supplies of essential materials are an important factor in supporting a high level of industrial employment. Another point that might merit citing is that certain industrial activities associated with particular materials tend to be concentrated in particular urban areas. For example, ceramics at Niagara Falls, lead recycling at Philadelphia, rubber tires at Akron, copper and brass in the Connecticut Valley, and so on. Thus, the economic health and social well-being of individual urban areas are selectively related to assured supplies of particular materials, some of which are largely imported. Item (3) under Section (2) of the Findings relates materials shortages rather explicitly to inefficiency of methods of production, among other factors. While this defect may be in evidence, it is suggested that a more positive approach might center on the fact that materials have historically been in abundant supply in the United States, while labor supply has been short. The tendency is to concentrate efforts at efficiency on shortage items. Thus, to save labor meant to use materials generously. For example, shoe factories in the United States stamped out lasts and shoes from sheets, while in Europe the workers fitted templates to the hides to maximize the number of pieces that a single hide would yield. Two other points might usefully be brought out in the Findings: (1) the important interactions among materials, energy, and environment. This point was well expressed in the National Commission's transmittal letter, and is developed also in the final statement at the second Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy. (2) Certain essential materials are produced by a comparatively small number of countries, and in the maintenance of diplomatic relations with these countries their special status as suppliers of these materials warrants sustained attention. On this second point, it may be that the bill could define the relationship of the proposed Council on Material Management to the Department of State. For example, if the exigencies of U.S. foreign policy require an embargo against a material available from only a few countries (chromium being an example), research into substitutes might be accorded a higher priority forthwith. At several points in the bill reference is made to the prospect that uniformity (i.e., standardization) information about materials is desirable. This is undoubtedly true. However, it might be noted that sometimes new materials or new uses of rather exotic materials are the subject or cause of sudden shortage situations. It is unlikely and indeed unnecessary that the proposed Council would ever develop as elaborate data compilations for selenium or high purity silicon as for steel, copper, or aluminum. The extent of data required for policy analysis, essentially, will vary from material to material. No useful purpose would be served by compelling statistical uniformity in scope of coverage. On the other hand, it would be desirable indeed to present tabular information in uniform units and not in long dry tons for one commodity, short ton units of contained metal for another, and metric tons for a third. One might wish for adherence to the metric system throughout-especially since private industry appears to be moving in this direction. Title II, addressing the proposed "materials information system", provides at several points for the collecting of information concerning materials technology. This is very important. It is suggested that supply-demand data are useful in |