eign mills to take our business, your American textile industry has lost two-thirds or a billion yards of export business since 1947 and now finds the remaining one-third in danger. Putting it another way, the export business which has been lost by American mills since 1947 is the equivalent of about 28 years of full production for a single plant employing about 1,200 people or it is the equivalent of 4 years of full production for 7 plants employing the same number.

And while American mills were seeing this business-10 percent of the entire domestic production-vanish, they were also seeing their own markets in the United States glutted with foreign fabrics made with cotton bought from America at fire-sale prices and at a wage level estimated to be about 10 times lower than the wage paid the American textile worker. This influx in foreign imports has taken away, it is estimated, an additional 3 percent of the business formerly enjoyed by American mills. This 3 percent may sound small but when you add it to the 10 percent lost in export markets and the fact that in some lines of goods such as velveteens, foreign imports have taken the great bulk of the domestic business, you have a serious situation. In our case, when we were forced by Japanese competition to take our looms off gingham at the York mill, we had to convert these looms to other fabrics which were already in oversupply. And, like a sword hanging over our heads, we never knew in what line the Japanese were going to hit next.

You have heard a great deal about the various pricing policies and so forth which have caused this loss of business for American mills, which have, as Senator Payne so forcefully said on the floor of the Senate this year, forced the closing of no less than 717 mills, and which have caused the loss of so many thousands of jobs that I shall not elaborate further on these. But isn't it incredible, for example, that Canada, which is only 125 miles from the location of our plants in Maine, can buy on today's market, because of our cotton policies, cotton at prices 834 cents per pound cheaper than what we have to pay for the same quality of cotton? These disastrous policies, Senators, give and are continuing to give cause for great concern. They mean that textile mills must exist on a day-to-day basis. They mean that employees are constantly worried about the security of their jobs. They mean that northern textile managements are unable to provide better wages for their employees. They mean that it is impossible for textile managements to do as much long-range planning as they would like to. They mean that many mills are unable to spend as much money as they would like, and as they probably should, for modernization purposes, and, in our case, we have spent, in 11 years, more than $17 million for this purpose in Maine, and a part of that money, a good part, went into the York mill, which we were forced to close.

The Bates management has complained long and loud about the Government's actions. Mr. Lester Martin, president of our company, appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in 1956 and warned that, unless remedial action was taken, there would be continuous liquidations in the industry. No relief was provided and, since his testimony of 1956, New England alone has lost 30,000 more textile jobs.

We have constantly and consistently written to high people in the administration and to almost all the members of the President's official

family, but always our pleas seem to have fallen upon deaf ears. One labor leader from the State of Maine even received a letter from a high Government official telling him that, if textile workers weren't satisfied, they could look to some other industry for a job.

Senator PASTORE. Can you document that?

Mr. GOSSELIN. I believe, Senator Pastore.

Senator PASTORE. That is a very serious thing.

Mr. GOSSELIN. I believe a labor leader will testify here today. He received a letter; it was made public in the newspaper and there was quite a bit of editorial comment about it. As a matter of fact, one editorial about the letter-I saw the letter-and the editorials stated it was sent to Maine by Mr. Stuart Rothman, Solicitor of Labor, and I sent those editorials to every Member of the Congress.

Senator COTTON. You mean Solicitor of the Department of Labor? Mr. GOSSELIN. Yes. It was in answer to a letter sent to the President of the United States.

Senator PASTORE. We would be interested to hear about it further. Mr. GOSSELIN. The letter was a matter of record and was introduced before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry last year.

Senator PASTORE. I don't know of anything more un-American that anybody could say.

Mr. GOSSELIN. A very high official of the United States Government, in testifying before a congressional Committee on Appropriations, said that American people who were injured by foreign competition should "have the spirit of adventure, to do what their forefathers did, pick up their bags and go elsewhere," and that is a matter of record, which I read in a transcript of a hearing sent to me from Washington. When Mr. Martin appeared before the Senate committee in 1956, he testified for a bill presented by Senator Smith. The bill, which was known at the last session as S. 314, would have directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 750,000 bales of surplus cotton annually for a period of 5 years to American textile mills at prices determined by the Secretary, and to enable the cotton textile industry to recapture the level of exports it had from 1947 through 1952. Passage of this legislation would have electrified the industry. It would have restored a sense of security in the minds of the people who have devoted their lives to working in textile mills. It would have restored the confidence of investors. It would have been of tremendous assistance to the manufacturers of textile machinery, because I am sure that, with this type of legislation, this type of confidence in the industry, mills would have committed millions of dollars into capital improvements. It would have meant that, instead of liquidating jobs and spindles, goods woven by American labor would have been marketed in areas wanting high-styled American cotton goods at competitive prices. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass in 1956. Again, in 1957, Senator Smith introduced in the Senate this all-important legislation, S. 314, and we testified again before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The Senate committee raised the first hopes that the textile industry had experienced in a long time when it reported favorably on the bill. The entire industry looked up hopefully when the bill was finally passed by the Senate during the summer of 1957. The House, however, failed to take action on S. 314.

Senator Smith also introduced another measure at the last session, which we think would solve the problem. This legislation was known as S. 3196, and would have meant this: That, of the cotton exported from this country each year through Public Law 480 and other programs, 25 percent be in the form of manufactured cloth woven by American labor. If this legislation were enacted into law, the major problems which the industry is confronting would be overcome and fiquidations would come to a halt. If we are to export our raw cotton at fire-sale prices as we do, what's wrong with exporting cotton products made by American labor?

In closing, I would like to state that, some months ago, the Council for Improved United States-Japanese Trade Relations complained to a Member of the United States Senate because that Member was working too hard for the American textile industry. In rebuttal to that, it was stated that, because of Japanese imports in the United States of over 1 million dozen flannel shirts, the Windsor Print Works at North Adams, Mass., employing 600 people, was forced to close after operating 100 years and after spending millions of dollars on modernization. The Luther Manufacturing Co., of Fall River, Mass., closed its doors because of the importation of Japanese combed goods. It had been in business 60 years. The Shelby cotton mill of Shelby, N. C., closed in 1955 because it, too, could not compete in foreign markets with the Japanese on cotton textiles. The Kings Mountain mill in North Carolina, owned by Loom-Tex Corp., making print cloths for foreign markets, also was forced to close in 1956 because of heavy losses, as it could not meet Japanese competition. I have mentioned the York mill and the Lynchburg mill of Bates. And then there's Merrimack, Wamsutta, and a host of others. The list is long, indeed.

I hope that the Congress, as a result of your study, will take quick action to prevent the list from growing. The hour is already late and, as has been testified before you previously, the damage which has been caused will be with us a long time. I would suggest, once again, that your committee do all it can to expedite action on the amendment to Public Law 480 so that some textile products will be sold abroad as it was the intent of the Congress of the United States to do. I hope, also, that you will recommend, and that Congress will enact, legislation which will give us back our export markets. If such legislation is passed, it will be an outstanding service, not only to textile workers but to the country as a whole, for the textile industry is a basic production segment of our economy, and it must be a healthy segment.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you for a very fine statement.
Senator COTTON. I want to thank you for your statement.

Mr. EDELMAN. I want to offer a little testimony apropos of the statement just filed by Mr. Gosselin.

My name is John W. Edelman, Washington representative of the Textile Workers Union of America. About 3 years ago, possibly 4, Mr. Chairman, the State Department came to the Textile Workers Union in Washington, and asked us to identify for them a typical middle-sized cotton mill in the South with a long record of successful collective bargaining. The purpose was to make a brief study of this situation and to illustrate it rather profusely with photographs.

This study was then to be sent to Asia, and to be translated into many of the Asian languages, and to be used as a case study in helping these trade-union movements in southeast Asia get a better realization of the purpose of the institution of trade unionism, and a successful and laudable effort in collective bargaining.

The_Consolidated Textile Mills, which Mr. Gosselin just referred to, in Lynchburg, Va., was perhaps the most outstanding example of this particular type. We made the study; it turned out to be an admirable job. I am told by the State Department people, actually the United States Information Agency did the work, on behalf of the State Department, that this was perhaps the most effective single piece of informational material angled to this problem of illustrating what social democracy meant in an industrial society that had been made available in the Far East, generally speaking.

I will simply add this, Mr. Chairman: I hope that some Communist propagandist hasn't been sufficiently enterprising to discover the sequel to that story.

Senator PASTORE. We thank you for that comment.
Mr. James J. Dugan of Watertown, Mass., is next.

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. DUGAN, PRESIDENT, JOHN T. LODGE & CO., WATERTOWN, MASS.

Mr. DUGAN. Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is James J. Dugan, president, John T. Lodge & Co., Watertown, Mass. I just wrote this little thing up this morning, so I don't have any copies of it.

In 1939 the Wool Products Labeling Act was made law. The conditions existing in the wool textile industry in 1939 were totally different from those existing today. We did not have the imports then we have now. No low-priced foreign fabrics came into this country labeled "wool." Italy and Japan imported from the United States millions of pounds of reused and reprocessed wool. What assurance do we have that some of our own reused and reprocessed wool shipped to Italy and Japan do not come back to the United States of America, in fabrics which they label "wool"?

If our manufacturers make the fabric containing reprocessed or reused wool, they must label it according to the percentage of fiber content outlined in the Wool Products Label Act.

Now, gentlemen, here is an imported fabric, labeled as you will see on the selvage, "all wool," and I personally tested it chemically. It shows 85 percent wool. Here are two other fabrics that were made in Japan, they are labeled "wool"; I showed them to Mr. Dewey, Mr. Door, Mr. Mortenson, and those gentlemen are familiar with the manufacture of that type of fabric, and they inform me that they could produce the same fabric using reprocessed and reused wool but, of course, they could not label it "wool."

To answer possibly one question so far that you asked Mr. Dewey, Mr. Chairman, our Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, nor what is used in the making or labeling of their fabrics. We bring that point out with these fabrics here that we have shown you.

Senator PASTORE. You mean they don't have the jurisdiction to inspect, but they have the right to stop it from coming in, if they have proof of it?

Mr. DUGAN. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read this letter to you. This is from the Derby Co., textile research chemists, one of the best services in the entire United States of America.

There is no accurate method for determining the amount of new wool, reprocessed, and reused wool in the same blend. The only way that we could help you on this problem would be to examine the wool microscopically and estimate the percentage of the blend containing mechanical damage. It is generally true that reprocessed and reused wool will show more mechanical fiber damage and perhaps chemical change also than new wool. I do not feel this would be of sufficient accuracy to label a blend as containing percentages of new wool, or reprocessed or reused wool.

Senator PASTORE. That is why I said, "if you can prove it."

Mr. DUGAN. It is apparent from this outstanding organization that it is impossible to prove.

Senator PASTORE. You could at least make an effective case out of it.

Mr. DUGAN. Now we find, these fabrics I have submitted to you, prove the contrary. We talk about the Federal Trade Commission, you brought that point out. In Mr. Crowder's testimony, who represented the National Wool Growers, before you gentlemen of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on February 24, he made this statement:

Nor do we believe that the wisdom of preserving the statutory requirements is lessened in any degree by alleged difficulty in detecting the presence of reprocessed wool in falsely labeled imports of wool products from abroad. A Federal Trade Commission witness testified before the House committee last year that the Commission knows of no such imports, but that he has been given expert opinion that the presence of such reprocessed fibers could be detected by laboratory analysis

which is definitely in contradiction to the statement of the Derby Co., which I have right here. And I think, Senator, I mailed you that photostatic copy direct to your office in Washington.

He goes further and says:

In any event we suggest that the difficulty of enforcement in one limited area is not a valid reason for repeal of a statute of general applicability which provides abundant benefit to the mass of people.

Senator PASTORE. May I ask a question on that point? How would you attack this problem, what would you do or what do you suggest? Mr. DUGAN. Just let me go on for a moment here.

Senator PASTORE. All right.

Mr. DUGAN. Now, I have a letter from Senator John F. Kennedy and he wrote to me and talked about this reprocessed fiber, and he says:

I can assure you that I am not in favor of any legislation that discriminates against reprocessed wool. I realize that the use of such term stigmatizes good fabrics to the detriment of manufacturers and consumers alike.

Now, my suggestion, I believe, gentlemen, when you passed H. R. 469, I believe it was, which was this manmade fiber bill and cotton bill and whatnot, there was no provision put into that bill that I know of wherein there was any stipulation that reprocessed or reused labels would be used in that type of thing and yet undergarments that would be of synthetics, say they were nylon undergarments, they could be used again and still they go in as nylon, not reused nylon.