Statement of-Continued Page Lewis, Dean M., president, the Silk and Rayon Printers and Dyers Lozier, Alice, Stroock & Co., Newburgh, N. Y. Malenda. Vera__ Marsh, Charlotte, Box 87, Stottville, N. Y. Masaoka, Mike M., American Importers of Japanese Textiles, Inc., 1345 1531 1466 1534 1613 1422 Moore, Perry E., Robert Moore & Co., 82 Wall Street, New York, 1294 Neese, John, c/o Danville Silk Co., 7 Pine Street, Danville, Pa....... 1550 1534 Pollock, William, general president, Textile Workers of America, Ryan, Edmund F., international representative, Textile Workers 1512 1234 1448 1349 Shaufenbil, Francis, secretary-treasurer, United Textile Workers 1580 Siegel, Sanford H., president, William V. Siegel Co., Inc., 40 East 34th Street, New York, N. Y. 1395 1573 1585 1535 Singer, William, Turner Halsey Co., representing Textile Export Asso- 1359 1309 1423 Stitt, Nelson A., Stitt & Hemmendinger, 1000 Connecticut Avenue 1592 Stopford, Robert, sales manager, Forstmann Menswear Division, 1303 1531 Wildebush, Joseph F., executive vice president, the Silk and Rayon Wilkinson, Edwin, executive vice president, National Association of Letter from— Brandis, Buford, The American Cotton Manufacturers Institute, Wilkinson, Edwin, National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Wilkinson, Edwin, National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Winget, A. D., president, the American Cotton Manufacturers Institute, Washington, D. C., to Hon. Ezra Taft Benson, dated December 29, 1955.. 1289 1213 1533 1552 1258 1259 1589 1226 1706 1260 PROBLEMS OF THE DOMESTIC TEXTILE INDUSTRY WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1958 UNITED STATES SENATE, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, Army Reserve Building, New York, N. Y. The subcommittee met at 2 p. m., Senator Pastore presiding. Senator PASTORE. All right, it is now 2 o'clock. If we may have order, gentlemen, we are now beginning the final series of field hearings on the problems of the domestic textile industry pursuant to Senate Resolution 287. Our first hearings were held in Washington in July. Subsequently, hearings were held in northeastern, eastern, and southern textile States where we had an opportunity to listen to testimony offered by those closest to the problems of the textile industry; namely, textile management and textile labor. A large number of witnesses have already appeared before this subcommittee and a voluminous record has been compiled. The members of this subcommittee knew before the hearings were started that conditions in the textile industry were critical, but the details of the industry's problems were not familiar to us. We have now heard many of these details and the problems have been amply documented by statistical data. In this final set of hearings, we expect to obtain further valuable information which will aid us in the preparation of a report summarizing the results of the entire investigation. Going over the testimony that has been presented thus far, one is struck by the tremendous volume of effort which has gone into this investigation. The trade associations, the textile unions, and many individual mill managements have prepared long and detailed statements of their problems. All of this work has been of an invaluable assistance to the subcommittee. We feel certain that the same careful preparation underlies the testimony which will be presented to us here in New York. It is perhaps inevitable in a lengthy investigation of the sort we have been conducting that some of the testimony we have heard would be more appropriately presented before other committees or subcommittees of the Congress. It is also not unusual that some of the testimony presented would be of a controversial nature. Different witnesses see the problems of this industry from varying points of view. We have Staff members assigned to this hearing: Dr. William H. Miernyk and William L. Kohler. expected this and we are not in any way attempting to circumscribe or to limit the further evidences that will be presented before this subcommittee. While there have been some differences of opinion among witnesses, however, we have also been impressed by the substantial area of agreement among different elements of the textile industry. There is, for example, common agreement that some of the problems faced by the textile industry today stem directly from the administration of certain Government policies. We are interested in obtaining further evidence that will assist the subcommittee in evaluating the impact of these policies upon the industry. It is a pleasure to welcome all of you who plan to testify before this subcommittee today and during the following 2 days. I might announce at this time that the investigation will be concluded with 1 day of hearings in Washington, at which time witnesses representing Government agencies will be invited to testify. We hope that everyone who wishes to testify has had an opportunity to appear before the subcommittee or will appear before us during these concluding hearings. I have here a list of witnesses and I will call them off and, in order to expedite the proceeding here today, I will attempt to arrange the order at this time, and if there is any reason why someone should want to intervene in such a way as to interrupt the procedure that we have set out, I would hope that you would make that desire known to me now so that we can make the proper arrangements. The first witness that I will have will be Edwin Wilkinson. Now, Mr. Wilkinson, are you here? Mr. WILKINSON. I am here. Senator PASTORE. Now, how long will your testimony be, do you think? Mr. WILKINSON. Fifteen minutes. Senator PASTORE. Fifteen minutes. The next witness I intended to have is Mr. Robert C. Jackson. Is Mr. Jackson here? Mr. JACKSON. Yes. About 20 to 25 minutes, Senator. We can cut it, if indicated. Senator PASTORE. Twenty-five minutes to a half hour. I am not trying to limit anyone; just trying to line this up. The next witness will be Mr. W. Ray Bell. Is he here? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator PASTORE. How long will you be, Mr. Bell? Mr. BELL. About 30 minutes. Senator PASTORE. Dean M. Lewis. Mr. LEWIS. I am here, sir. About 15 minutes. Senator PASTORE. About 15 minutes. Mr. Joseph Wildebush. Mr. WILDEBUSH. Yes, sir. About 25 minutes. Senator PASTORE. Twenty-five minutes. Mr. Milton H. Rubin. Senator PASTORE. Fifteen minutes. And Mr. M. J. Lovell; is he here? (There was no response.) Senator PASTORE. All right; Mr. Moore. Is Mr. Moore here? Senator PASTORE. Now, is there anybody else in this room who desires to testify whose name I have not called? (There was no response.) Senator PASTORE. All right; I expect to stay here until we conclude these witnesses, gentlemen. Mr. Wilkinson. STATEMENT OF EDWIN WILKINSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MANUFACTURERS Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my name is Edwin Wilkinson. I am executive vice president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, 386 Fourth Avenue, New York City, comprised of manufacturers of textiles using virtually all kinds of fibers on the woolen and worsted systems. Mr. William I. Kent, president of the association and also of the Kent Manufacturing Co., Clifton Heights, Pa., presented our principal statement to you on last July 8 when your study of the textile industry began. Mr. Kenneth W. Marriner, president of Marriner & Co., manufacturer of wool tops at Lawrence, Mass., on behalf of the association, discussed subsidized imports. În view of the comprehensive statements made by Mr. Kent and Mr. Marriner and those of many other wool textile witnesses at your five field hearings, it would seem that a supplemental statement from this association would not be necessary. This is not the case, however. Even while you have been learning firsthand of the damaging effects of textile imports, the executive branch of our Government appears to be moving swiftly to cut still further our already low textile tariffs. These menacing developments are a result of the 4-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act giving the Executive-that is to say, the State Department-authority to cut tariffs 20 percent. As you know, the members of GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, currently are meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. At a time when the textile industry needs encouragement from Government, we read the following in Daily News Record of New York, October 17 issue: C. Douglas Dillon, United States Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, today told the ministerial level opening session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade here that "dumping of textile products by Communist China is severely affecting traditional export markets of India and Japan. It is thus making more difficult the achievement of the second 5-year plan of India and hampering the economic growth of Japan." We have no quarrel with his concern for India and Japan, but we would like to see at least equal concern for American textile manufacturers and some word of warning that the United States is not going to be the dumping ground for textile manufacturers around the world. The same business paper in its October 20 issue: Commerce ministers of the 37 GATT countries unanimously agreed that an arangement should be made during the current 13th meeting of the contracting parties to launch "another round of tariff negotiations" aimed at the reduction of duties on textiles, clothing, electronic instruments, and food. Please note that this was a unanimous agreement. There was no reported objection from United States representatives. There is food for thought here also for our customers, the American clothing manu facturers. My advice to them is that the time is here when they had better adopt a long-range view. For understandable reasons-lower prices of imported cloth-they have appeared in opposition to our pleas for proper tariff protection. There is reason to believe that imports of made-up clothing may increase even without the threatened duty reductions mentioned in the news dispatch. Even as these events were taking place at the GATT meeting, a Government official made a speech in New York at a lunchean given by the Japanese Chamber of Commerce. Daily News Record of October reported in part: The United States Government does not intend to reverse its foreign trade policy and place restrictions on Japanese imports just because of the protests of some American industries. This point was emphasized by Loring K. Macy, Director of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, United States Department of Commerce, and by Heitar Inagaki, head of the Japanese trade mission now here, in talks yesterday at a luncheon given by the Japanese Chamber of Commerce. "We are conscious of the fact that Japan buys much more from us than we buy from her." Mr. Macy told his audience * * *. "And we recognize the need of Japan to sell still more goods in the United States." The only reported reservation made by Mr. Macy came in this sentence from the news article: He said the Government finds it difficult to grant "meaningful tariff concessions" when Japanese themselves have severe restrictions on imports into their markets. The article continued: "The American market is going to remain the most important outlet for Japanese products for a long time to come," Mr. Inagaki declared ***. He listed the following objectives of his group: "to bring in higher quality goods, to seek new lines, carry on market surveys; to increase public relations and advertising programs; to work through established American channels of distribution and to regularize prices." After reading these press reports in October, I doubt that American manufacturers of either textiles or clothing were so unrealistic as to hope the United States State Department would show some concern for them. If there were such hopes they were thoroughly doused last Monday, November 10, in a Daily News Record dispatch from Geneva which said in part: Heads of delegations to GATT were in huddles at the weekend over United States plans for setting up machinery for negotiation of general tariff reductions on textiles, clothing, homefurnishings, electronic equipment, and other manufactured products. The GATT secretariat confirmed that the plan presented at the plenary session Friday calls for a meeting of a preparatory committee in "mid-1959" and opening of a conference for cross-the-board tariff reductions in the middle of 1960. Informed GATT sources claim this conference will last at least a year. Albert E. Pappano, vice chairman of the American delegation, explained that the conference could not begin before 1960, since there was so much preliminary work to be done. There, gentlemen, is the starkly depressing view of the future now being projected by our own representatives at the GATT meeting. The State Department is openly determined to further sacrifice the United States textile industry and now is throwing in the clothing in |