nent theater, in which there are executive offices and entertainment facilities.

So we were relieved of our responsibility which we, by contract, had to do, tear the building down; we did not have to tear it down. Mr. HALL. Will you yield for one more question?

Mr. FULTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. If no further effort is made about the acquisition of the ground for additional construction, will you assure us now the Federal Government will be relieved of the responsibility of tearing down this building in the event the long-term lease on the property, real estate, or purchase of real estate, is not had by GSA?

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. I am afraid I cannot give you that assur

ance.

Mr. FULTON. He is the wrong one to assure you that.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Could you tell us whether or not you have entered into this lease, or is it in negotiation at the present time with Century 21?

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. We have entered no lease and will not until we find we have funds.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Is it on a 2-year basis?

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. That has not been explored to its fullest. It could be 2 years, 10 years.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I asked the question because I am sure the U.S. Government will not want to enter into just a 2-year lease basis, just the length of the exhibit that would be held there. If you are going to build on a piece of property, you would want to lease long enough so if you had to dispose of it, you would have ample time to do it. Mr. FULTON. Rather than take the time to put in the details of the $7 million, I wish you would put that in the record and conform it to your estimate of the $5,003,550, included in your $12.5 million. (The information requested is as follows:)

Mr. FULTON. With what you have said today, it makes the section 7 of the old act of September 2, 1958, Public Law 85-880, inoperative and, therefore, this bill, the new one, H.R. 7982, technically should have in a repealer of section 7, that is of the old act.

You have not used any of that money, and none was appropriated, so when we are going to set up some new authorization and the total is going to be $12.5 million, we then should repeal section 7 of Public Law 880 of the 85th Congress.

Otherwise, it will be $12.5 million, plus $125,000.

Mr. DUCANDER. The authorization would be outstanding.

Mr. FULTON. So we should cancel that authorization, should we not?

Mr. MILLER of California. Will counsel take care of that amendment?

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. I am through. I yield the floor.

Mr. ANFUSO. I want to congratulate you on your very excellent presentation, Mr. Miller.

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ANFUSO. Would not this be a wonderful opportunity, Mr. Miller, to demonstrate to the world how scientific discoveries could eliminate poverty and create a world of abundance?

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. It would be a great opportunity.

Mr. ANFUSO. You know, you are trying to appeal to these undecided people throughout the world. All they know now is what science can do to destroy them. Wouldn't this be a good opportunity to show these countries, for example, how a change in weather conditions, regulations, and so forth, can make dry land fertile, things of that kind?

Would you consider some exhibits along those lines, in creating a world of abundance which would make war unnecessary, through science?

Mr. FRANCIS D. MILLER. That will precisely be our effort, Mr. Anfuso. And I would like to suggest I appreciate your keen interest in the very things we are talking about, that when the reproduction of this presentation is handed to you, which I will be glad to have you see, if you would refer to that area and see, I think we have touched on it.

We have certainly tried and intended to.

Mr. FULTON. May I say, if you can tell me how to stay more than 30 days ahead of the sheriff, I will come to the exhibit, too.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Paul Weiss, member and professor of Rockefeller Institute.

Doctor, we are very happy to have you. I understand you have to get back.

We will stay here until the bells ring, anyway, then this will be the last witness for today.

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WEISS, MEMBER AND PROFESSOR, ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE

Dr. WEISS. I greatly appreciate your favor, Mr. Chairman, for me to get home to my workbench, where I am doing science.

I am Dr. Paul Alfred Weiss, member and professor at the Rockefeller Institute, New York City; and also a member of the National Academy of Sciences; a former chairman of the Division of Biology and Agriculture of the National Research Council; former vice president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; vice president of the International Society of Cell Biology, and of the International Institute of Embryology-but most of all a working scientist.

When the United States prepared its participation in the 1958 Universal and International Exhibition in Brussels, I was appointed by the Department of State as chief science adviser to the commissioner general, and in this capacity organized the U.S. contribution to the International Hall of Science. Thanks to the devoted efforts of a distinguished team of U.S. scientists, effectively supported by the National Science Foundation and segments of industry, the U.S. share in this international display of scientific progress has been outstanding a timely antidote to the snide remarks about U.S. scientific potential in the postsputnik days.

Because of my experience with the planning and execution of the Brussels science exhibits, I dutifully accepted the invitation of Senators Magnuson and Jackson, of the State of Washington, to serve on the science planning board for the Century 21 Exposition to be held in Seattle in 1961, which has chosen science as its key topic. And since, in the course of this association, I have gained the conviction that this event is to have a momentous impact on the future of science in our country and on its potential contributions to the welfare of mankind. I wish to testify on behalf of bill H.R. 7982 and plead for its fullest support.

Specifically, the exhibition program commends itself by the following features of highest importance for the continued invigoration and prestige of the U.S. share in the scientific development of the world.

(1) Being centered on man and his place in nature, it relates scientific progress tangibly to the welfare of the individual and of society, as exemplified in agriculture, medicine, and technology. It will document our basic commitment to raising the standards of living and the dignity of man through science, as major tool.

(2) In selecting as the four chief topical categories space, energy, life, and man, it dramatizes the issues of greatest concern to our times, and by letting the Government assume a large share in this presentation, it demonstrates to the world the deep sense of responsibility of our Government for the steady improvement of the lot of all people.

(3) In giving the public insight into the workings of scientific discovery, as well as its products, it will illustrate how practical benefits are naturally derived from a systematic advance of knowledge by basic research and thus, will create a broader base for public understanding and perspective of science.

(4) By fostering numerous ancillary activities for young people, it will attract a large sector of the new generation, particularly of high school age, and impress them with the exciting prospects of science, thus performing a major recruiting service in our national drive for scientific manpower so vital to the strengthening of the U.S. competitive position in the world.

In conclusion, the proposed emphasis on science in its relations to human affairs promises to achieve in one single step a major educational mass effect in a direction which is recognized to be vital to the welfare and security of our Nation and of mankind. I, therefore, consider the adequate support of this concerted and well-focused undertaking not only desirable in the best interest of the country, but a most efficient and economical means of attaining the desired ends. At the same time, it will give the visitors from other nations. an impressive view of U.S. imagination, inventiveness, resourcefulness, and team spirit, as well as an object lesson of the power for conciliation that lies in international collaboration in science for the common good. On all these counts, I respect fully commend the current bill for most favorable consideration.

If I may ask for the privilege, Mr. Chairman, to comment perhaps on some of the questions asked by yourself and some of your colleagues, briefly, as a working scientist, and from my experience, I might be able to answer.

Mr. MILLER. Go right ahead, sir.

Dr. WEISS. The question was raised whether the amount that is now earmarked for the science exhiibts might not better be spent, as far as attraction of young people is concerned, on fellowships, scholarships.

I would say we should use from here on in sciences not only the word "more," but the words "more and better"; try to get not only more people into science, but see we get more out of the ones we have and make a better selection. Not only more space, more dollars, more of everything, but see that the most effective use be made of what we have. In this regard I think this is frightfully important to us scientists and educators, to have a large segment of the population pass in review so that the most appropriate ones can be selected for the given number of scholarships and fellowships that we may have to give. So I think it is very important to have this prescreen activity, such as the exhibit promises to present.

As for the question of how is the exhibition-speaking as a member of the scientific planning board-how are they going to implement the idea of international activity? We had a very good success along that line in Brussels, because Brussels set up an International Hall of Science separate from all the national pavilions, in which all scientific contributions were intended to be amalgamated. It did not turn out quite that way, but the idea was there: that all the scientists from the various countries would join in a planning board. And I was sitting with my Russian and Czech colleagues, and there was a very amiable consideration of how can we jointly contribute to this exhibit, what science, which knows no international boundaries, can do today and tomorrow. And this is the plan we are trying to do here, and we hope that all national boundaries will be blurred, though the identity of each exhibit will be properly recognized.

43337-59-6

As to the total amount, I would say, from looking at the figures, the figure is a rockbottom minimum.

And on the question of per diem, as a scientist and member of the science planning board, the members of what you know to be one of the very high advisory boards, advisory committees, in this country, of which I have the privilege of being a member, draw only the standard $50 per diem; and, in all the scientific advisory activities in which I take part in Government, this is the maximum.

And, for your information, all the scientists of the country serve on the boards and committees of the National Academy of Science and Research at a per diem of $12.50 to $15. Therefore, as a scientist, I would certainly be very happy if the scientific consultants were given the $50 maximum in this connection. I don't know whether this merely reflects the economic status of our scientists; I do not know whether other groups would concur.

Mr. FULTON. May I compliment the doctor?

Mr. MILLER. I wish to compliment him, also.

Mr. FULTON. And thank him for coming here. Could I just ask this?

You feel this will be a very worthy addition to our scientific progress; also, that it will increase the interest and enthusiasm for science among the younger people?

Dr. WEISS. Yes, sir. And not only efficient, but relatively cheaper. Mr. FULTON. You feel $12.5 million is a rockbottom figure, as you have stated?

Dr. WEISS. It will have a major educational impact.

Mr. MILLER. Are Mr. Fry and Dr. Reynolds here?

Dr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Can you gentlemen return tomorrow?
Mr. FRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. With that, the committee will stand adjourned, and we will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(At 12:20 p.m., the committee recessed until 10 a.m. Thursday, July 9, 1959.)