The tariff on raw wool increases the cost of fabric production without providing adequate protection to domestic woolgrowers. It should be repealed and the cost of incentive payments under the National Wool Act paid out of the Treasury's general funds. In reference to that, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you are aware of the fact that there is a specific duty on raw wool imported into this country. I believe we are the only country in the world that has this type of a specific tax, which automatically puts the manufacturer of woolen fabrics in this country, irrespective of what part of the country they may be located in, at a disadvantgae to the extent of that specific tax. It is something like the so-called double standard in cotton which I was very happy to see Congress took action this year for correction in the next few years. Senator PURTELL. And in the light of the fact that the industry apparently needs imports and that we don't produce enough wool here ourselves even though testimony was given that the domestic production is rapidly catching up to the domestic demand-the fact is that we must import a considerable amount of wool. Mr. CHUPKA. We still have to import, I think, better than 50 percent of our needs. We have presented the subcommittee the foregoing facts and proposals in the belief that the textile industry in New England can survive. The understanding cooperation of the Federal Government can lay the groundwork for the revival and rebuilding of this vital industry. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few further words in conclusion. The textile industry as a whole, in the United States, for a number of years now, has been beset by many ills. One of the representatives of the industry, in concluding his testimony, said that we don't want any special concessions, just give us a fair shake, or words to that effect. Gentlemen, I am not going to be that proud. I will even take special concessions for the workers in this industry, who in my opinion, have not been getting a fair shake; they have been beaten, in my opinion. The administration has apparently-and I have said this in Washington-come to the conclusion that the textile industry in the United States is expendable. Some indication of why I feel that way, may I point out to you that our union started the implementation of the 5-percent reservation in the wool provisions. It took 2 years from the date of our petition, before the thing finally went into effect. It needed no new legislation, it just needed administrative action. Senator PURTELL. What year did you start that? Mr. CHUPKA. 1954, sir. Contrast that to the haste and speed in which the administration can act on other matters; take oil for instance. I seem to recall that about a year ago the oil industry made a complaint that they were bothered by overimports. With great speed and dispatch, the administration acted and put into effect a so-called voluntary quota system-and I use the term "so-called voluntary" purposely, because it is about as voluntary as staying in jail. Sure, they have a right to import whatever they want to, but if they do, they cannot get any Government business. And in view of the fact that the Government buys from the oil industry, just for the jet planes in the Navy, if you will, in the amount of $1,200 million, and that their overall expenditure to the oil companies in the course of the year must run well over $3 billion, I don't think there is too much "voluntaryism" in it. I would like to see the administration, Congress, the Senate, act with some degree of speel insofar as the plight of the textile workers is concerned, and the industry. Senator PURTELL. Well now, Mr. Chupka, I am sure you will agree with me that if we addressed ourselves immediately and effectively to the question of voluntary quotas on oil, it wouldn't help the textile industry one single bit. We are here talking about the problems of the textile industry. I appreciate the fact it gives you an opportunity to say many things up here, as a witness, that have nothing to do with this hearing, but I think when you address yourself to the problems of the hearing, you have helped us quite a bit. I appreciate your presence here. I would ask my fellow Senators now if they have any questions. Senator COTTON. No questions. Senator PURTELL. Doctor? Dr. MIERNYK. No questions. Senator PURTELL. Mr. Baynton? Mr. BAYNTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator PURTELL. We were very happy to have you. Thank you. (The table referred to by Mr. Chupka is as follows:) Woolen and worsted mill liquidations in New England, 1952-58 Senator PURTELL. Daniel Gallagher, manager of the Connecticut joint board, TWUA. Do I understand that you have with you two other witnesses? Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, Senator. I have two other witnesses with me. STATEMENT OF DANIEL GALLAGHER, MANAGER, CONNECTICUT JOINT BOARD, TWUA, NORWICH, CONN.; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH FLAG, WAUREGAN, CONN.; ELZEAR COTNOIR, JEWETT CITY, CONN.; AND ARNOLD KLEINSCHMIDT, MANCHESTER, CONN. Mr. GALLAGHER. Senator, I have a prepared statement, but in the interest of brevity I am just going to try to take some notes from it. For many years the textile industry, particularly in eastern Connecticut, was the largest employer in the area. I estimate that there are some 20 plants that have closed there, which employ probably 6,000 to 7,000 people, and I might say that they are all kinds of textile plants, woolen mills, cotton plants, screen-print plants, and dyeing and finishing, and they have all closed. That doesn't take into consideration plants in the other parts of the State, like the J. P. Stevens Co. in Rockville, which employed 1,400, and líquidated in 1951; the Broad Brook mill in Broad Brook, besides the fact that a mill like Bigelow-Sanford in Thompsonville, which employed at one time as many as 3,000 people and presently employs 700. I merely point those out to show what has happened in the industry has happened statewide and it has been devastating. In addition, we had mills that used to do weaving, carding, and spinning that have discontinued all weaving and now do just carding and spinning. This has caused great hardship, and I would like to point out to you the effect on the relief load in a couple of areas, namely, Norwich and Putnam. I have here some figures that may interest you. For instance, in January 1957 in the city of Norwich they had a total welfare cost of $11,300. In the spring of 1958-this was the last figure I could get― the welfare cost jumped to $19,000, which is practically 50 percent or even more. Now, in Putnam the March 1948 relief costs there were $8,896, and in March of 1957, $12,598, approximately 50 percent increase in welfare costs. What happens to the textile industry has an impact beyond the individual worker; it affects the community, the State. Now, this industry is confronted with many difficulties. It has been a real distressed industry; the reasons for the problems are many, and also difficulties took place long before the present recession. The facts are that while the American economy generally was prospering textiles were on the downgrade. I would like to remark on some of the testimony that I heard, both here and in Providence. Somebody pointed out the wages in Japan were 14 cents an hour, and I think they said the British wages were 45 cents an hour. The average wage in the entire textile industry, taking all segments of it, is $1.50 an hour. So, I come to the conclusion that if the people worked for nothing, it wouldn't solve the problems of imports. Assuming that wages are probably a third of the cost of the product it is clear that wage costs in this country are not the cause of the decline in the industry. We had more testimony on the fact that the Japanese textile workers live in barracks and eat fish while we have television sets and all that. Well, if we want to go back far enough to the cotton workers in Lowell, they, too, lived in barracks, as you probably know, Senator. The matter of wages is not the answer to this problem. The tariff has had a bad effect on this industry. I do think we have to have something done in respect to categories. You talk about 5 percent and people say that is very little in the matter of imports. But I have talked with several employers and they point out, particularly in the woolen and worsted industry, where they concentrated on the fine worsted that the percentage is actually very much greater. I think one witness talked about sharkskins and pointed out that fabric is gone entirely. This committee should consider this matter of two-priced cotton. That has had a real damaging effect. I also think, too, we have to place some of the blame where it belongs, in the textile industry. I think the matter of research and development has been neglected. Just take two items, for instance. The upholstery in cars; we used to have a lot of that in Rockville. That is all gone now, or practically all gone. And an article in the American Textile Reporter pointed out the inadequacy of research in the industry. Dr. Walter J. Hamburger, director of the factory research laboratory, stated in an address in 1956, that the textile industry is not researchwise. The record of research expenditure is disappointing and management on the whole is not research conscious. The industry has done very little advertising. I was quite pleased on Saturday night to notice that the Manhattan Shirt Co. has a television program. This is something our union has been saying since 1946 that there has been little effort on the part of this industry to capture a larger share of the consumer dollars. When you see automobiles advertised, refrigerators, all the other appliances, that is where the worker puts his first part of his dollars. We have got to have a sustained program to attract the bigger share of the dollars. As long as the workers want 2 automobiles and 1 pair of pants, the textile industry is in trouble. The present administration has demonstrated very little concern for the textile industry or the people and communities that depend on it for their livelihood. I know you asked for some recommendations. I certainly hope that out of these committee hearings will come a recommendation for a permanent Federal redevelopment agency. I think such an agency is vital to the rebuilding of the industry. And I can only repeat that I think the problems are so diverse, they are so many, that every bit of assistance that can be given, no matter from whence it comes, should be welcomed and should be used. I also think that the Government should implement this revision in Public Law 480 which permits the sale of manufactured cotton fabrics under our surplus sales program. I also think that textile surpluses should be distributed to the needy communities. We have to think in terms of a shorter workweek. I know that they have talked about a 35-hour week. We must give that serious consideration. And one important factor that I don't think has been mentioned. here, and which bothers me a great deal, I don't know where the trained textile workers are coming from in the event of war. Young people are not coming into this industry. The industry is not attracting them because of the very uncertainty and the wage structure. I can well remember in the last World War many of our mills were working-particularly in Norwich-making goods for the Navy, and a lot of other mills manufacturing fabrics. If we, heaven forbid, had a war tomorrow, I don't think we have the equipment to do the job that we did in World War II. I don't think anyone can take the position that the textile industry is expendable. They talk about new industry coming in to New England; yes, there has been some. But speaking particularly for eastern Connecticut, we have not had in new industry 15 percent of what would be needed to make up the jobs that were lost when textiles closed. It is estimated that there are some 20 or 30 cars that leave from Putnam every day, going over to East Hartford and other places to work. The Electric Boat in New London has provided work for some people. But there has not been a place for these people who have spent a good part of their lives in the textile industry, and who know no other trade. That about concludes my testimony, Senator. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Senator PURTELL. I would be very happy to hear them. I want to thank you for being here and we welcome any remarks the other members of your committee wish to make. Before you leave, the other Senators may have a question or two. But I would like to hear the other witnesses first, anything they wish. to say. Mr. FLAG. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Joseph Flag. I have been working 29 years down in Wauregan, before the mill liquidated. I haven't worked since last January and my wife has been out since last December. We can't get work nowhere. Senator PURTELL. It is a bad situation. Mr. FLAG. There are some women down there working in a chickendressing place for $1.10 an hour that used to make $1.60. Senator PURTELL. Well, that, I want to tell you, Mr. Flag, is what we are trying to find the answer to. I don't know of any problemand I am sure it isn't peculiar to Connecticut, it is true in Senator Cotton's State, it is true in the State of Maine-I don't know of any problem that I have given more throught to than the one concerning what is happening to our textile industry and what is happening to our textile workers. And I am sure this is true also of the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. FLAG. You know, Senator, when you are 47 years old, it is pretty rough to start in another industry. They just don't want you. Senator PURTELL. I know it is. And I can assure you whatever I can do, or this committee can do to see that this situation is corrected, will be done. I feel so strongly about it that I am not going to talk about it any more, because I get a little emotional. However, I can tell you that what you have said is more eloquent than if you had come up with a long prepared statement. Mr. FLAG. Thank you. Mr. KLEINSCHMIDT. I am Arnold Kleinschmidt, vice president of local 63, Textile Workers Union of American. This is the union in Cheney Bros. I don't think we are unfamiliar to you, Senator Purtell. We have written you many letters on this question of imports and tariffs, and so forth. You have answered our letters very politely. We thank you for it now. But after sitting here listening to a lot of reports here, and Dan just said how it is very hard for the textile industry to get young employees. This fact was just brought out at our company approximately a month or so ago, that the average age in our plant today is between 50 and 55 years old. The textile industry in our place has gone through a great major change in the last 3 years. We were owned by Cheney Bros., and a few stockholders-believe me, I wish you were the rackets investigation gathering committee instead of this |