$47.1 million, $50.1 million, $44.2 million, respectively, while those from other European countries totaled $31.6 million, $42.3 million, $50.4 million, and $48.2 million.

A sharp rise was noted in such imports from Japan: From $7.6 million in 1954, to $17 million in 1955, $30.5 million in 1956, and $34.4 million in 1957.

Figures on exports and imports of manmade fibers, apparel, and related manufactures for the 4 years 1954-57 were as follows: Exports-$173.6 million, $173.4 million, $176.2 million, and $174.4 million; imports-$12.5 million, $17 million, $22.1 million, and $25.5 million; from Japan-$3.7 million, $6 million, $6.8 million, and $8.6 million; from France-$3.8 million, $4 million, $4.3 million, and $3.9 million; from other European countries $3.6 million, $5.4 million, $7.2 million, and $8.3 million.

OTHER FIGURES GIVEN

Figures for silk fabrics, apparel and related manufactures were: Exports $1.9 million, $2 million, $2.2 million, and $2.4 million; imports $31.3 million, $41.1 million, $51.5 million, and $58.4 million. From Japan-$17.7 million, $23.6 million, $30.1 million, and $33.9 million.

From Italy $4.8 million, $8.5 million, $11 million, and $10.5 million; from other European countries $7.2 million, $8.4 million, $9.2 million, and $8.7 million.

United States exports of miscellaneous textile manufactures amounted to $40.9 million, $43.5 million, $46.8 million, and $49.9 million, respectively.

Imports rose from $20.7 million in 1954 to $23.3 million in 1955, $27.2 million in 1956, and $32.3 million in 1957. Imports from Japan rose from $6.6 million in 1954 to $7.5 million in 1955, $10.2 million in 1956, and $12.1 million in 1957. Imports from other European countries were $7.1 million, $11.6 million, $10.2 million, and $12.4 million. "Rising imports have resulted from continued tariff concessions". If imports are to continue at this pace, we can expect more unemployment in the industry.

The executive council of the United Textile Workers of America, in session on August 27 and 28, 1958, in New York City, gave its unanimous endorsement to the testimony of George Baldanzi, international president, before your committee on July 10, 1958, adopted the following:

1. We are in disagreement with the administration of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. In that, it was never intended that trade reciprocity between nations should be dominated by diplomatic consideration or convenience. Neither was it intended to injure the domestic industry or agriculture.

2. We believe that the final decision on tariffs should rest with the legislative branch of the Government and not the executive.

3. We do not believe that the United States textile industry is expendable in the struggle for world markets.

That is the position of our organization, and we would like the committee to give serious consideration to our thoughts.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to have you before our committee.

Our next witness is Andre Bonte.

STATEMENT OF ANDRE R. BONTE, BONTE SPINNING CO.,

WOONSOCKET, R. I.

Mr. BONTE. My name is Andre R. Bonte. I am vice president and general manager of the Bonte Spinning Co., Inc., of Woonsocket, R. I., and also a vice president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers.

We are a small business, however measured. We have 5,600 spinning spindles and employ about 150 persons at an average straighttime wage rate of $1.5212 per hour. We produce all wool; worsted spun yarns for sale to both the weaving and knitting trades though more than half of our output goes to worsted weaving mills. Our yarns go into woven fabrics and knit items which retail in the "popular" price field for the so-called mass market.

My father, Eugene A. Bonte, president of the firm, came to this country from his native France to manage a yarn mill. We established our own company in October 1952. My brother, Albert E. Bonte, is treasurer. Our plant has modern machinery and we are doing all we can to carry on the business successfully. I believe also that American spinning mills generally are modern.

In other words, in spite of adverse conditions, including rising imports, the industry has had the courage to spend large sums for new machinery. Thus it is not an outmoded industry crying for tariff protection so that it won't have to lay out money for up-to-date equipment.

The statement of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, made to this subcommittee on July 8, 1958, and with which I fully concur, dealt in detail with the more than 50 percent contraction of the wool textile industry, the growth of imports resulting from sharply lowered tariffs, the wide disparity in wages between American and foreign mills.

Since you have the facts on an industrywide basis, I won't repeat them except for salient data on yarn. The ad valorem duty on wool yarn is only 15 percent, having been slashed as much as 70 percent in tariff-cutting negotiations. Imports of wool yarn, much of it worsted spun, have been running at about 2,400,000 pounds in each of the last 2 years in spite of difficult conditions here. The chief sources in 1957 were Japan, Belgium, Britain, and Germany in that

order.

The wages in these foreign mills run from about 14 cents an hour in Japan to something like 50 cents an hour in the European countries. This compares with the average of $1.5212 in our own plant. However efficient we may be, we cannot overcome the tremendous wage gap. The combination of the low American tariff and the big wage differential is the crux of the problem, permitting imported yarns to sell here at prices mills here cannot hope to match.

The yarns we spin are medium counts for use in popular price cloth and knit items. Imported yarns reportedly are mainly in the higher counts which, of course, have the greatest labor content, thus giving the foreign spinners maximum benefit of their low wages.

Theoretically the imports should not be as harmful to us as to American spinners of high count yarns. But that is only theory for the imports literally skim the cream off the entire market. Moreover

they disrupt it. They do this by tending to force American high-count spinners into the lower count market, the specific area in which our mill is struggling to stay alive. Let me hasten to say that I am not complaining about competitive changes within the yarn market which may be caused by American competition. I am complaining, however, about distortions brought on by unfair, low-wage imports.

Importation of yarn as such tells only a fraction of the story from my standpoint. To the figure of 2,400,000 pounds imported in 1957 must be added large quantities of yarn entering in the form of cloth, knit goods, and other apparel. These imports directly damage our customers, the weaving and knitting mills, and also the clothing manufacturers. In 1957, woven cloth imports totaled about 16 million pounds; knit goods, about 5 million pounds; apparel made of woven cloth, about 1,700,000 pounds. In terms of yarn, this is at least 22,700,000 pounds, worsted or woolen spun. The point to be made here is that we, as spinners, are hit not only by imported yarn as such but also by these heavy imports of yarn in the form of cloth, knit goods, and other wool apparel.

This would represent about 15 mills of our size producing on a full basis.

Senator PASTORE. And what percentage, overall, is imported as against domestically produced?

Mr. BONTE. The amount of yarn imported actually is a very small amount, but once again you have the disruptive influence which I have mentioned about forcing some people who have been in historical markets to go into other type markets.

Senator PASTORE. Now, you insist, being in the business and having had experience, that that is not fiction. You say it is actual damage, even in spite of the fact it is so small by comparison and percentagewise.

You say that it does have a depressing effect upon domestic production?

Mr. BONTE. Definitely, Senator.

Senator PASTORE. Well, give us some experience on that, because we have a lot of trouble explaining that argument. We are told, "Well, it is only 3 percent, why would 3 percent hurt?"

Why does it hurt? I want you to tell us.

Mr. BONTE. We had one particular customer 2 years ago who manufactured over 2,000 pieces of a particular type of goods known as sharkskin type fabrics, fine woven goods. Because of the Japanese imports, he was no longer able to produce that cloth. As a result of it, he has not produced 1 yard of that cloth in the last 2 years, and we have as a result not produced 1 pound of yarn for him.

We have spinners in the Rhode Island area who were historically fine count spinners, and with whom we never directly competed, but as a result of the fine count imports of yarns, now we directly meet against them, and since we are all vying for a smaller market all the time, it has an effect on the price that can be obtained for the yarn. Senator PASTORE. Which in your opinion, is real?

Mr. BONTE. Very real.

In sizing up our own prospects as spinners of worsted sales yarns we naturally must consider the competitive factors within the American textile industry. These, however, are problems of the kind we

29350-59-pt. 2

expect to meet and hope to overcome. Such competition is fair by American standards. If we lose out, we have only ourselves to blame. These considerations, however, do not apply to unfair, low-wage foreign competition. We cannot control the trade and tariff policies of the United States. We must look to the Government to protect our interests. To date the Government has not done so. To the contrary, by sharply reducing tariffs, it has left us wide open to damaging assault by foreign spinners and this assault gives every indication of becoming increasingly damaging.

In its statement to you on July 8, 1958, the National Association of Wool Manufacturers outlined the principal means for import relief. I won't repeat them but point out that the Geneva reservation, which provides a tariff-rate quota for woven wool cloth, does not apply to wool yarn. Neither is there a similar reservation which does apply to yarn.

I point out also that the tariff-rate quota on cloth appears to have stemmed cloth imports to some degree-except those from Japan. Most of the Japanese goods are reported to be worsteds, which compete directly with the products of my customers, the American worsted That means there is little, if any, benefit even indirect benefit, for worsted spinners resulting from the Geneva wool cloth reservation.

weavers.

It must be borne in mind that the Japanese are the largest exporters of wool yarn to the United States, most of it said to be worsted spun This is significant when related to press reports from Tokyo that the Japanese Government is proposing-apparently voluntarily-to set a quota on her exports of wool cloth to the United States. There is no indication, however, that wool yarns are to be included in such a quota. If the Japanese cloth quota is made effective there is every reason to fear that there would be a substantial increase in Japanese wool yarn shipments to the American market.

It would seem appropriate for the Government to press Japan also to consider a quota on yarn.

There is slight chance for any fast action by the Government which would lead to higher, equalizing duties on imported wool textiles, including yarns. Thus there well may be firms now considering whether there is any point in continuing. Yet most of us want to continue. We believe our product is a useful one, essential in time of emergency. We believe the continued operation of our plant is in our own interest, of course, and that it also is in the best interests of our community, State and Nation.

I hold these beliefs even though the Government appears to have greater concern for foreign textile interests than for American manufacturers and their employees.

This is truly a sorry picture. You may ask, is there anything the Government could do right now to give at least some encouragement to the industry? I believe there is. The first step would be to pledge that yarns and other wool textiles would not be thrown on the bargaining table for further tariff cuts in GATT negotiations. Such a pledge, made loud enough to be clearly heard in foreign mills, would help to restore confidence here.

The next step, of course, would be for the Government to move through GATT or however may be necessary to give us adequate pro

tection against low-wage yarn imports. In the case of Japan, I repeat my earlier suggestion that the Government press her to add yarns to any quota which she is planning for wool cloth.

We do not desire a Government handout. We do seek the opportunity to compete with foreign mills on fairly even terms in the American market. I do not believe it is unreasonable for me to ask my own Government to give me that opportunity.

(The two documents submitted by Mr. Bonte are as follows:)

EXHIBIT A

[Statistical Signals, by Vince Johnson, National Association of Wool Manufacturers, August 19, 1957]

A 30-YEAR REVIEW OF WOOL YARN IMPORTS

During the period 1927 to 1936, total imports were 3,019,000 pounds, with the United Kingdom supplying 66 percent of the total; France, 3 percent; Germany, 1 percent; and all others, 30 percent. From 1937 through 1946 total imports were 5,227,000 pounds, or 73 percent higher than the previous 10 years, with the United Kingdom accounting for 49 percent; France, 8 percent; Germany, 2 percent; Japan, 7 percent; and others, 36 percent. In the years 1947-56, imports totaled 17,729,000 pounds, 239 percent above the previous period, of which the United Kingdom supplied only 13 percent; France, 15 percent; Germany, 25 percent; Japan, 10 percent; Italy, 14 percent; Belgium, 11 percent; and all others, 11 percent.

The United Kingdom's loss of predominance first occurred in 1946 when Italy claimed 44 percent of that year's total, with 34 percent going to the United Kingdom. Thereafter, the United Kingdom's share of the market tapered to a low of 8 percent in 1954 and 1955, rising slightly to 9 percent in 1956.

Italy in 1946 preempted and maintained the lead through 1948. In 1949 imports from Germany rose to claim 31 percent of the market, leaving 9 percent to Italy. In 1950 Italian imports rose to 23 percent, but Germany still led with 37 percent. Since then Italian imports have dwindled to negligible proportions for the years 1954, 1955, and 1956.

Though Germany took the lead in 1949 and held it through 1954, in 1955 Japan entered the market strongly, accounting for 37 percent of such imports, with 23 percent going to Germany. Again in 1956 Japan was strong, with 41 percent of the total. Meanwhile Belgium, heretofore a minor factor in this market, improved her position from fifth place in 1951 to second place in 1956, accounting for 24 percent of the yarn imports.

Yarn imports for the first 4 months of 1957 totaled 572,000 pounds, or 37 percent below the 903,000 pounds in the similar period last year, with Japan supplying 31 percent; Belgium, 24 percent; United Kingdom, 14 percent; Germany, 13 percent; France, 8 percent; and all others, 10 percent.

1957 AND 1958 WOOL YARN IMPORTS

Imports of wool yarn for all of 1957 amounted to 2,283,000 pounds, virtually as much as the 2,385,000 pounds total in 1956. In 1957 Japan accounted for 32 percent; Belgium, 21 percent; United Kingdom, 17 percent; Germany, 16 percent; France, 8 percent; and all others, 6 percent.

In the first 5 months of 1958, imports of wool yarn amounted to 939,000 pounds, a gain of 10 percent over the 854,000 pounds entering in the first 5 months of 1957. SEPTEMBER 16, 1958.

Mr. BONTE. Now, Senator, could I make one extra statement? Senator PASTORE. Yes, you may.

Mr. BONTE. There has been a point made during the testimony as to why there has been a decline in the use of textile products in this country, particularly apparel type products. Let us admit there has been a change in the clothing habits of the American public, but