Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that tariffs on imports of sheet glass into this country be lowered is utterly ridiculous. For this Congress on the one hand to pass time and again legislation which is supposed to be sympathetic to the economic conditions of certain areas of our country, and then to have an agency of the executive branch of the Government to continue rendering decisions which adversely affect the economy of the areas which the legislation endeavors to aid seems to me to be an inconsistency of the highest order.

ture of what has or will happen eventually in all our basic industries.

To buy an all American made radio, television and dozens of other consumer products today is a chore and when one does buy what he thinks is an American made product he is rudely awakened, on close examination, to find it is foreign made although the trade name is a well established U.S. patented or trademarked label.

February 13, 1962, I made an address to a group in New York City on the then pending extension of the trade agreements. A few of the comments from this address are as appropriate today as they

INDUSTRY

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. DENT] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed happy to join my distinguished fellow Member, Congressman EDMONDSON from Oklahoma and others in this open discussion of our serious import problems. In this instance, the emphasis is on flat glass simply because it happens to be the item selected at the moment by the import-export cartel group as the next victim of their systematized and international plundering.

I say this bluntly because to do otherwise would be to dignify plain everyday international profiteering as something

other than what it is.

There is little or no regard for the human elements in this modern business of free trade unless it is the interest of the few as against the welfare of the many-U.S. workers.

No one profits except the handlers in this kind of world trade. The public pays the freight coming and going in world trade between unequal economies, trading like products.

When one realizes that 1 out of every 13 cars sold this year in the United States will be a foreign made import, it is easy to understand why this Congress must pass all types of antipoverty, education, manpower training, and other economic aid legislation. Every factory worker who loses his job to imports cuts two and a half jobs out of the economy. Every American who produces for overseas creates fewer extra job opportunities since shipments abroad go direct from factory to shipside and shortcuts the entire U.S. industrial complex.

The glass industry has a vital stake in car manufacturing since all cars, domestic and import, use a great amount of glass in their production.

Glass has had a rocky road in this Nation. Just 20 years ago there were 42 flat glass manufacturers in the United States-today there are only 4 left and one of these, formerly the American Window Glass Corp. one of the world's largest at one time is now controlled by the St. Gobain Syndicate from Paris and the company is now known as American St. Gobain.

The history of the glass tariff fight is one that should be reviewed by every Member of Congress since a study of the industry will give a fairly accurate pic

dress headed "Survival in World Trade": FOREIGN TRADE-THE PROPAGANDA BATTLE In this trade and tariff fight before the Congress and the people, let's look at the record. On one side, lined up behind the State

Department's spokesman, George Ball, we find an army of many generals, unlimited resources and tools for propaganda, for subsidies, for favors, for presssure and for reprisals. On the other side, we find an army made up of workers, small industry with very limited resources-hardly the resources that win a war that depends upon the creation of public opinion.

In a booklet entitled "The ABC's of Foreign Trade," put out by the State Department this past week, trade is described as "an exchange of goods for something else of value." This is a sound economic fact. However, after this opening statement, the pamphlet becomes an out and out propaganda piece and attempts

to justify trade for trade's sake with or without economic reality. The argument is made that we sell $20 billion abroad and buy $15 billion worth of imports. This fails to take into account the 30 percent of our exports sold to American taxpayers and shipped abroad-gifts if you will. The State Department claims 2 million jobs from exports and fails to show how many more jobs are lost by imports.

THEORY VERSUS FACT

For over 4 years a Harvard liberal in the labor movement has given me the wellknown bird every time I talked about foreign imports injuring U.S. industry and destroying U.S. job opportunities. Recentfrom Japan. He returned the same time ly he came into my office after returning as our State Department grand tour ended, two notable achievements Udall climbed Mount Fujiyama, and the State Department promised Japan more of our market.

However, my visitor stepped down in the view of free trade between unequal econovalley of realities and came back with a new mies.

This is his story: "I've disagreed with you over the years. I was wrong. I'll support your position in this fight all the way. What I saw in the manufacturing plants in Japan convinced me that we cannot compete in a free world market, no matter how much we automate.

"In one instance I watched a production line in an electronics plant. They had the new machines we have in our own domestic plants where we have a contract. The only difference was that our machines were 9 years old while theirs were only 2 years old. at the same productivity per machine as The rate of production per unit was timed our machines.

"The difference, however, was that in the United States, one worker operated one machine at a pay scale of around $2.60 an hour,

while in Japan, one female worker operated

two machines at 15 cents an hour. An in

spector earned about 20 cents an hour as against over $3 an hour in the United

FALLACIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S
ARGUMENT

Does anyone believe that barriers in any country stop essential goods from being traded? If this is true, then why does Brazil sell coffee to Germany when Germany has a tariff of 75 cents a pound on coffee although it must import coffee, having none of its own?

We need trade, we need certain raw materials and products we have in short supply. This doesn't mean that in order to get minerals from Chile we must let Chile sell below our cost of production in fruits and vegetables and other items we have in oversupply. It doesn't mean that Chile shouldn't sell these same products in our market based upon merit and quality and not on price.

We say that unless we buy, we can't sell. Does that really hold water in international trade? If this is true, why is it that the Common Market is courting disaster by erecting more external protective tariff walls while eliminating internal restrictions? Those who clamor for tariff cuts have in mind the joining of our economy with the Common Market. What happens then? Do we apply a free trade policy with the Common Market to our most-favored-nation clause and if we do, how much trade will the Common Market do with the United States in competition with Japan, Hong Kong, the Alliance for Progress nations and the emerging nations of Africa and Asia? More important, how much can we retain of our own markets both here and abroad taking into consideration our tax bites and labor rates?

FAILURE FORESEEN

I won't predict doom and disaster if we enact the administration's foreign trade program. I do predict, however, that it will have to be revised before too many moons have passed. We may, of course, have to go the whole route before we admit failure. That's been our program since 1952. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act actually using the safeguards supplied by Congress. never got a real test, properly administered, In fact, world conditions with the depression of the 30's, World War II, the Korean conflict, the massive rebuilding program for our allies and our former enemies made it impossible to assess the real value of the act up until now. The real impact of consumer goods imports and the loss of the high labor content exports followed the 4-year extension.

After the passage of the 4-year extension, damage really did start snowballing. The amount of the damage isn't fully assessed. The loss of a production job is felt immediately by the displaced workers, next by the employer unless he automates, and slowly but surely, over a 4-year period, the whole economy feels the loss of spending money on the part of the one worker who lost his job.

A REALISTIC APPROACH

This much I will confess. Before I started studying wage scales, tariffs, embargoes, licensing, employment figures, job ratings, retail prices, personalities, and theories of economics by some of our leading present and past economists and philosophers, I was a dyed in the foreign wool free trader. I'll admit I've been disillusioned. I find that people are just pretty much the same the world over. Their wants, desires, ambitions, greed, charity, tolerance, intolerance and virtues all measure in greater or lesser degree to the level of all men and women.

There are no supermen in this field of economics. Trade is a commercial venture based upon profits and losses, supply and demand. It's as true today as it was yesterday and will be true tomorrow. Without restraints and protective covenants, the high-cost production area will suffer in

a free trade-international economy. The high-economy, high-price market will be flooded with cheap goods.

In this new world, with nations reduced to a matter of hours and minutes apart, instead of free trade being the answer, protective or survival trade must be the answer. When the world's nations were weeks and months apart, free trade was more workable because of the limitation of transportation and supply. These were built-in tariffs and protections.

Today, a new dress pattern in New Jersey is copied by foreign producers and put in the marketplace in New York within 72 hours

after the original is shown to the public. The copies can come from Asia, Africa, Japan, Hong Kong, Portugal, Paris, Rome

in fact, anywhere in the world in about the

same time as the New Jersey producer can fill his orders locally. This being the case, then how can a New Jersey operator compete in this new close-hitched world if he has a built-in cost of production beyond his

control?

FIRST DUTY TO OUR PEOPLE

in whole or in part, of the customs treatment reflecting concessions in duties granted on such products under the Trade Agreements Act, as amended, being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, either actual or relative to domestic production, as to cause or threaten serious injury to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive products. The U.S. Tariff Commission on May 17, 1961, unanimously found that the domestic industry has been and is continuing to be injured by foreign imports and recommended increases in existing tariff rates. On June 30, 1961, President Kennedy referred the sheet glass matter

back to the Tariff Commission for additional investigation.

Much of the data, including most of the

exhibits, which I shall present here today are already part of the record in the proceedings before the U.S. Tariff Commission. Mr. R. F. Barker, vice president and general

manager of the Glass Division was the witness for the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. in the proceedings before the U.S. Tariff Commission.

The letter dated June 23, 1961, from Congressman JOHN H. DENT, chairman of this

gram admit this much: "Some industries will be hurt more than others (by inference they admit all will be hurt), and the Government will have to give financial aid to those industries as well as institutive retraining programs for the displaced workers."

This means that, because of import injury, people will be denied their opportunities to earn a living in the field of endeavor they

feel most suited for. It means that a family can be uprooted from its home site, its friends, its social and economic life. We seem to forget that although we have a collateral interest in the well-being of all nations and all peoples, our first interest and duty belong to the United States of America and all its peoples.

TOWARD SURVIVAL

Trade is described by Secretary Rusk of the State Department as "an exchange of goods for something else of value." We have no quarrel with this description. We refuse, however, to go on the premise that "trade for the sake of trade" is beneficial between two nations of different economic levels and costs of production.

Free trade is a desirable and worthwhile goal for all nations, but its attainment depends upon the economic equality between nations in the fields of wages, taxes, services, and raw materials costs. Until that time comes, if our Nation is to survive, it must maintain its economic stability by keeping all five pillars of our economy equal in proportion to protection. The five pillars of our economy are: Investment (creates production), Production (creates payrolls), Payrolls (creates consumption), Consumption (creates profits), Profits (create investment).

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, this is a fight against the importation of glass at a low tariff rate which causes unfair competition in our market for U.S. workers and U.S. industry.

Looking back to hearings before the committee, which I headed, studying the import impact the record shows the following statements from both management and labor on the glass situation:

Mr. SHERBONDY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Donald J. Sherbondy. I am director of industrial relations for the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (PPG).

Extensive evidence concerning the effects of sheet glass imports has already been presented by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., both orally and by written documentation, before the U.S. Tariff Commission at hearings on August 17, 1960, and March 15, 1961. These hearings were for the purpose of determining whether sheet glass is, as a result,

specifically requested that data be presented concerning the level of imports and exports of glass during the past 10 years and the changing levels of employment in the industry during this period.

ment which I designate as exhibit I, which It may be helpful to begin with a docuI believe the committee has, and which is entitled "Import Duties-Paragraphs 219 and 224-1930 to Date." This exhibit shows the steady and marked decline in import duties on sheet glass over the years.

Exhibit II is entitled "Imports of Window Glass, Plain, Colored, and Processed, Covered by Paragraphs 219 and 224, Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended-1950 Through 1960."

The first general trade agreement concession on tariff duties applicable to sheet glass was made effective January 1, 1948, as indicated in exhibit I. Additional general reductions in duty were made effective in 1951, 1956, 1957, and 1958. During this period, as indicated in exhibit II, imports have increased sharply from 32,133,031 pounds in 1950 to 410,413,126 pounds in 1960, or an increase of more than 1,175 percent.

For a number of years following World War II the sheet glass industry abroad was principally concerned with rebuilding and reequipping its facilities and devoting its output to rehabilitating and rebuilding purposes in countries of production and neighboring countries. Through the decade of the 1950's there was, of course, a tremendous rise in the number of new sheet glass-producing foreign sources. As the home consumption needs of foreign industries were satisfied, as foreign expansion occurred and new foreign production sources were created, the attention of all foreign producers was turned to the world's largest market-the United States. It is respectfully submitted that this committee is not concerned with month-to-month or necessarily a year-toyear rise or fall but is interested in trends over a longer period covering a series of years.

Mr. DENT. May I interrupt you? Mr. SHERBONDY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DENT. In your statement just previously, you said that these productive facilities being rehabilitated and built in foreign countries were built for the express purpose you did not use that language of invading the American market?

Mr. SHERBONDY. Whether they were built for that express purpose or not, the result is exactly that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DENT. Well, I think that at this time we ought to put right into the record a statement by Rene Lambert, permanent representative of the Belgium sheet glass industry for the United States and Canada, in its

remonstrance against the protectionist order of the Tariff Commission.

The article also said:

"The Common Market countries are wondering whether this will be a first step toward a return to protectionism.

"The Belgians who claim they have created a modern sheet glass industry especially to suit the needs of the American market, hope Kennedy will reject them."

(The clippings referred to follow:) "BELGIUM ASKS REJECTION OF GLASS TARIFF

INCREASE

"NEW YORK.-The Belgian-American Chamber of Commerce has urged President

Kennedy to reject the U.S. Tariff Commis

sion's recommendation to almost double the gium and other West European countries. tariff duty on sheet glass imported from Bel

"At at news conference, a spokesman for the chamber expressed 'deep concern' over

the U.S. Tariff Commission's proposals, sub

mitted to President Kennedy May 17, to increase duties on all types of imported sheet glass by almost 100 percent.

"Because the Communist bloc countries

stand outside the mutual tariff concession area created by GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) these proposals would not affect sheet glass imported from Russia, Czechoslovakia, and other Iron Curtain countries.

"MAJOR MOVE

"Rene Lambert, permanent representative of the Belgian sheet glass industry for the United States and Canada, said, "The question goes far beyond the limits of the glass industry because this is the first move of major importance and of major consequence by the new President in the matter of escapeclause proceedings and it is bound to have serious repercussions.

""The Common Market countries are wondering whether this will be a first step toward a return to protectionism,' Lambert said.

"The Belgians, who claim they have created a modern sheet glass industry especially to suit the needs of the American market, hope Kennedy will reject them because, they claim:

"Belgian sheet glass imports have not hurt the U.S. domestic glass industry;

"The new tariff hikes would be more than U.S. manufacturers themselves asked for;

"CLAIM DISADVANTAGE

"They would put Belgian and other West European sheet glass imports into a very disadvantageous position compared to Iron Curtain glass imports here, which have boomed over the past 18 months.

"Lambert told newsmen 'two can play this game. The tariff proposals if adopted will have a serious effect on the psychological relationships between the two allies.'

"He said Belgium already carries on a deficit trade with the United States (its imports from the United States are some $60 million larger than its exports to America).

"Imposition of protectionist barriers is bound to invite retaliation.' He did not elaborate but said Belgium already has recalled its delegate to GATT in Geneva and its Ambassador in Washington for consultation.

"The President has until July 17 to act on the recommendations.

"(Officials of American-St. Gobian Corp., which operates a plant in Jeannette, and representatives of other sheet glass firms testified at hearings in Washington recently that imports have forced closing or curtailment of plant operations in America.)"

"GLASS TARIFF NOT REVISED "WASHINGTON.-The Tariff Commission has declined to revise the tariff agreement on imports of rolled glass after disagreeing on the impact of foreign products on the domestic industry.

"Most imports come from Belgium, Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and France.

"Three Commissioners ruled on Thursday there was no threat to the domestic industry and made no recommendation for modification of the agreement.

"Two ruled there was injury and recommended duties be increased 12 cents a pound and 5 percent ad valorem. One said there was a threat of serious injury and recommended a 2-cent tariff increase.

""There is no recommendation of any group of Commissioners for "escape" action that may be considered by the President as a recommendation of the Commission,' the Commission said. 'Accordingly, no report is submitted to the President.'

"The President does not act without a report from the Commission, a spokesman said."

Mr. DENT. I wanted to put that in the record right at the point that you made the observation that the rehabilitation of the European economy went beyond that contained in the original reciprocal trade arguments, foreign aid argument, that we were to help them recover their economic status to what it was at the beginning of World War II.

In your opinion, have they gone beyond their own needs?

Mr. SHERBONDY. They certainly have, yes, sir.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. Proceed.

Mr. BAILEY. May I interrupt at that point? I participtaed, as the gentleman will no doubt recall, and appeared on behalf of the glass industry in the hearings before the Tariff Commission in March.

Mr. SHERBONDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. And as a development, we find the President referring the question of sheet glass, sheet, crown, and cylinder glass, back to the Tariff Commission for clarification of their report.

Mr. SHERBONDY. The significant fact is that during the period when duties on sheet glass were progressively reduced, imports increased at a staggering rate. During the period that these reductions in duty have been effected, the domestic industry has lost

Mr. SHERBONDY. Because our export business is declining.

Mr. DENT. Now one of the pet arguments of those seeking lower tariffs, and opposing any protective adjustment at all, is that you are in the position you are because you have failed to keep competitive and are not exporting as much as you can export.

Can you give us a reason for that, if it is so? Mr. SHERBONDY. Well, as I will point out later in the statement, Mr. Congressman, the actual situation with respect to the comparative relationships between foreign glass producers and American glass producers is such that it is practically impossible for us to compete with them because of their much, much lower costs, and one of the things we should realize, I think a great many people in this country who are uninformed on the subject have a feeling that a lot of these foreign manufacturers, glass and other products, are small, struggling industries, and this is certainly a very, very erroneous conclusion.

With respect to the sheet glass manufacturing, for example, you should realize that the sheet glass manufacturing originated in Europe, and there are companies there that have been in the business for hundreds and hundreds of years, large and powerful companies. These are not little starving companies; these are very powerful units, and they are operating with cost situations that are so much better than the American in

dustry that we are certainly in need of protection of the American workingman.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you add that they are not located in underdeveloped areas?

Mr. SHERBONDY. They certainly are not: Belgium, England, West Germany, they are not underdeveloped countries.

Mr. DENT. Do you know, is there any restrictive covenant in the countries that export to the United States against the importation of American glass, either by way of know of? tariff, variable currency, or quotas, that you

Mr. SHERBONDY. I believe there are tariff restrictions.

Mr. SHERBONDY. As I have pointed out, ex

import competition.

This is convincingly demonstrated by exhibit III which is entitled "Sheet and Window Glass, Plain, Colored, and Processed:

U.S. Shipments, Exports, Imports, and Apparent Consumption 1950-60." This exhibit shows that although the total apparent consumption of sheet glass in the United States is increasing significantly the percentage of that consumption enjoyed by domestic producers has been steadily declining.

During this period from 1950 to 1960, imports of foreign sheet glass measured in pounds increased from 2.2 percent of total U.S. consumption in 1950 to 24.6 percent in 1960, a period of 10 years. Stated another way, in 1950 domestic manufacturers enjoyed 97.8 percent of our domestic market and in 1960 their share had declined to 75.4 percent. Unquestionably, imports have increased sharply and have taken over a steadily increasing share of the American market. There can be no doubt, therefore, that such imports have contributed substantially to the serious injury which the American industry and American labor have sustained.

It is also significant that during this same period, from 1950 to 1960, domestic exports of sheet glass from the United States to the other countries declined from 9,900,000 pounds to 4,200,000 pounds, a decline of more than 57 percent.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you say there that they have not only taken 24 or 25 percent of our domestic market but they are also taking our markets in other countries?

Mr. SHERBONDY. Correct. Correct.
Mr. BAILEY. And cutting down our exports?

more than 57 percent, but even more significant is the fact that exports in 1960 were only one-third of 1 percent of total sheet glass shipments by domestic producers in the United States. One-third of 1 percent, abso

lutely insignificant, against, you see, imports which were practically a quarter of the American consumption.

Exhibit V is entitled "Foreign Penetration of U.S. Market as a Percent of U.S. Sheet Glass Production 1959." Exhibit V shows

that in 1950 foreign sheet glass imports measured 50-foot S.S.E. boxes as distinct from pounds-were equivalent to 2% percent of the total estimated domestic production. In 1959 imports measured in boxes increased to over 31 percent of domestic production.

The most significant reason for the lower costs of foreign sheet glass producers, which makes it possible for them to invade so successfully the U.S. market, is the drastically lower hourly wage costs in foreign countries. This is demonstrated by exhibit VI entitled "Glass Workers Average Hourly Wages" which was submitted in evidence by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., at the hearing before the U.S. Tariff Commission on August 17, 1960.

You will observe that in 1959 the average hourly wages in Japan, excluding fringe benefits, were 33 cents and that such wages-including fringe benefits-were 69 cents and 75 cents, respectively, in West Germany and in Belgium.

On the other hand, our average-I mean by "our" the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.average hourly wages in that year were $3.72. Thus, our wage rates were approxi

mately five times those of Belgium and of West Germany, and eight times those of Japan.

While no data were available respecting Japanese fringe benefits it is unlikely that such benefits would increase the Japanese 33-cent figure above a maximum of 40 cents.

With respect to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. figure of $3.72, there have been additional wage and fringe benefits granted under existing labor agreements from 1959 to date which would increase the hourly wage costs by approximately 20 cents.

The significance of this almost insuperable labor cost advantage held by the foreign producers is best appreciated when it is realized that the labor content represents more than 50 percent of our total costs in making sheet glass.

The effect of all this upon employment in our sheet glass operations must be obvious and is illustrated by exhibits VII and VIII. Exhibit VII is entitled "Index of Imports to Total U.S. Sheet Glass Consumption 195060 (1950=100)."

Exhibit VIII is entitled "ComparisonDomestic Consumption of Sheet Glass and PPG Man-Hours 1950-60 (1950=100)."

These exhibits show that while the apparent consumption of sheet glass in the United States had increased by 1959 approximately 620 million pounds (by 1960, 208 million pounds) over 1950-an increase in 1959 of more than 42 percent-hours of employment in our sheet glass operations in those years not only had not increased but actually declined 51⁄2 percent in 1959 and 7 percent in 1960 from 1950. At the same time, imports of sheet glass into the United States increased 1,478 percent in 1959 and 1,177 percent in 1960, over 1950 (see exhibits II and III).

Mr. RUST. Mr. Chairman, I am Enoch R. Rust, international vice president of the United Glass & Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO. I appear here today as the representative of the employees of the window, plate, and rolled-glass industries and workers engaged in the manufacturing of ceramic floor and wall tile. Today the imports of these items are staggering when

compared to imports just 10 years ago.

The 1960 imports of sheet, plate, and rolled glass amounted to over $50 million. This excluded the millions of dollars worth of glass that was prefabricated prior to shipping, such as the approximately 15 million square feet that was imported in the 668,000 foreign-made automobiles imported during 1959 and almost an equal amount during 1960. Plus mirrors, furniture, and many other imported items containing glass.

The imports of window glass in 1949 were only 4 million square feet. In 1951, 26 million; 1953, 80 million; in 1956, 281 million; and in 1959, 425 million square feet, or 8.5 million 50-foot boxes; 1960 imports fell slightly to 7,077,000 50-foot boxes, but domestic shipments also dropped.

I might say at this point that this 425 million square feet of window glass, taken from the statistics offered in the record at the Tariff Commission hearings, the jobbers quoted a figure of 32 boxes, which amounted to 175 square feet of glass; when divided into 425 million, you find that it goes around 4.5 million times, which means that this was enough glass to build or supply window glass for almost twice as many six-room homes as were built during that time.

I think by checking the Government record you will find that during the 2-year period, we built some 2,700,000 dwellings, and this glass was enough to supply 4,500,000.

During the fifties, exports took a reverse action from that of imports, and fell from 172,000 50-foot boxes to only 55,000. The picture is practically the same in the ceramic floor and wall tile. One can easily envision the devastating effects upon the American

economy when approximately $80 to $100 million in wages are being cut off yearly in these industries. (This is an estimated figure.) These workers that are being displaced by foreign imports are told to seek employment elsewhere in other industries, such as steel, textile, chemical, bicycle, plywood, or automobile, but when they arrive at the gates of these industries they find that they have laid off workers seeking employment in the glass and ceramic industries because they, too, have been adversely affected by excessive imports. In fact, they probably pass on the way to each other's gates.

Some companies are migrating to the South in search of cheaper labor. Some go out of business. Others leave the country.

Mr. BAILEY. Would you mind enlarging on that last statement, some "leave the country"?

Mr. RUST. Well, I understand, Mr. Congressman, that this is also encouraged, and in a meeting of the nationwide Committee on Export-Import Policy in 1960, a maker of electronic parts and radios said that if relief isn't granted his company, that his company has already decided to go overseas. And I asked him where he expected to get his market, and he said he expected to find a market in the United States for at least 5 more years. So they went into that pretty lengthily, to see how long they could stay in the United States and enjoy the market, until they plucked the chicken dry here, and I guess they are going to slant their eyes and move to Japan with their companies. I don't know. They didn't go that far.

Now, I am speaking of the last remarks, the adverse effect upon the overall economy, because all three of these moves have an adverse effect upon our overall economy because they tend to drain our purchasing market, which creates unemployment.

Let's take the Gemmer Co., makers of steering gears at Detroit, Mich. They decided to move to Lebanon, Tenn., so that they could enjoy paying a lesser wage to newly hired employees. A Federal court recently ruled that their promise to give job priority to local citizens was invalid because their Detroit workers with as much as 20 years' service had created a vested right of seniority which could not be canceled unilaterally. The Detroit workers therefore have prior rights to jobs after the plant moves September 2, 1961.

But let us consider the thousands of workers that are left high and dry when the companies they work for decide to move to some foreign country. There is no court on earth that can rule that they have vested rights, yet our Government encourages such migration. This does not sound much like government for the people nor by the people.

We are here today to discuss economic repercussions caused by foreign imports. I feel the facts are very clear. Those workers that are so affected by runaway companies are expected to be the purchasers of their products. But no one has as yet adequately explained where these people are supposed to get their spending money to buy with, when they have no job.

The freetrader likes to focus the attention of the unemployed worker on automation and makes a strong claim that this is his trouble. But let us use the wagonmaker for an example. When automobiles came into being he just put motors on his wagons and called them autos and continued to prosper. This in my opinion can be deemed the greatest step in automation in our history. But look what happened to the automaker when 668,000 units were imported in 1 year. He almost went out of business. Merger here and merger there, in order to keep their

heads above water.

I think this proves that we can keep up with automation, but where products can be produced by labor with wages many times below that of ours, we find it impossible to

CXI-1420

compete. This places our free enterprise sys

tem in jeopardy, therefore endangering the tem in jeopardy, therefore endangering the entire American way of life.

Let me sum up the impact of foreign imports in this manner. Had the 2,000 glassworkers displaced by imports worked or, let's say, half of them, they would have created jobs in the automobile industry, and many jobs in the automobile industry, and many other industries. The thousands of automobile workers displaced because of the loss of this business, and by imports, would have created jobs for the glassworker. The men and women employed in making the 80.5 million pairs of footwear imported in 1959 and the 133 million pairs in 1960 would have created many jobs in glass, automobile, and many appliance industries that had to cut off workers because of a lessening market, caused by excessive imports.

This situation exists in many other industries. All forms of ceramic pottery ware, flint glassware, toy and novelty, and many other American industries. This is the grassroots. This is where the market is created. And when we export these jobs to foreign lands, these people cease to buy radios, autos, televisions, refrigerators, furniture, and the many other necessities of life.

I have no way of knowing, but I think it would be vital information to this committee to know just what the retail price of the $14 billion worth of imports come to. I am sure it would open the eyes of many sleeping Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying, God bless America. Today she really needs it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is the end of my prepared remarks, but I do have here something I think should go in the record. It is called "The Truth About Imports" and it is printed by the United States-Japan Trade Council, and it will give anybody that is interested and that knows something about the import-export problems just how these people go around misconstruing fact, and to create a false impression as to just what is happening in the trade situation.

Now here in 1958-and I am quoting this from this magazine-"when four mediumsize companies tried to get their duty raised on nails, galvanized fencing, and barbed wire, the Tariff Commission unanimously dismissed the cases. At the hearing, a witness for the United Steel workers opposed any increase in duties, having advised the Commission that any problems the industry was having were the results of its own deliberate pricing policies."

Now, this man-there is no name in here of who this representative of the Steelwork

ers Union was, and I am pretty sure that

there is a good reason for it, because if the people that he was supposed to be representing, the people that were out of jobs, the people that were working part time, and the people that were paying his wages to appear before the Tariff Commission knew that he was OK'ing to import their jobs to Japan or to some other country, I do not think he would have been there very long. So they very cleverly excluded his name from the report, and I think it was a protective

measure for him.

Now, let me show you how they misuse information that is misleading to the public on another case. This is trying to support the escape clause legislation as outlined in

section 76 of the act, and here they say con

cerning the case that is most dear to me and the gentlemen sitting here:

"The case of ceramic mosaic tile: The Commission unanimously found that imports caused serious injury to domestic producers, and recommended an increase in the tariff rate. Similiarly, in the case of cylinder crown sheet glass the Commission unanimously found serious import injury, and. recommended a tariff increase. These three cases-baseball gloves, ceramic mosaic tiles, and sheet glass-indicate that in those rela

tively few cases where actual import injury has been established, the Tariff Commission can be relied upon to recommended additional tariff protection."

Now the same people that wrote this article are inferring to the American public that the mechanics of the legislation is workable, that it does work, and that relief was granted; and it has not been granted, and probably the odds are that it won't be granted unless a tremendous amount of pressure will be put on the person that has the authority to wield the pen to say yes or no.

So that's the kind of misleading information that is fed to the public, to make them think that they are secure, in a trade situation that in my opinion is very dangerous to the American way of life.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the remarks that we have made here today have helped to further our case in this fight for some kind of protection. Mr. DENT. Be seated, sir.

Mr. ROMITO. The city of Arnold is here today to impress upon the committee the economic aspects that have confronted the city, due to the layoff at the American Window or at the American-St. Gobain glass plant.

In the city of Arnold, one source of revenue is the collection of the wage tax. It has been one of our chief sources of revenue.

In the year of 1956, we received a total revenue that year from the wage tax of $102,736.89. The following year, that is, the year of 1957, when the American-St. Gobain plant closed, our revenue for that year was $88,409.13; and in 1958, the wage tax dropped to $78,329.35.

In 1959, the amount collected was $77,622.08. In 1960, the amount collected was $68,649.50, and in 1961, we have collected to date $35,546.16.

As a result of the loss in wage tax that has been collected, the city of Arnold has been compelled to double the assessment on the real estate tax. We had an assessment of 6 mills, and in December of last year, the millage was increased to 12 mills for the year of 1961.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Romito, does that mean that the plant that is idle over there also gets a double assessment?

Mr. ROMITO. Yes, they have been reassessed. Mr. DENT. I think there are two fellows coming off the sidelines to attack you.

Mr. ROMITO. Now I don't say that all of this drop in the wage tax is due to the number of men being reduced at the glass plant. But at least in my opinion, anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of it is due to the fact that the men at the plant are not working. And it has created an extreme hardship on the

city, and the inhabitants.

In the census of 1950, we had a population of about 11,000 and in the census of 1960, our report, we have a population of a little over 9,000 now. Part of that loss is due to the fact that the men are not working, and are

leaving our city, and seeking work elsewhere. And we definitely feel that if some relief is granted to the glass industry, and the men are working, that our economic condition will be greatly improved, and that we might be able to grant some relief to the taxpayers and to the industry.

Mr. Speaker, while the debates were going on in 1961 and 1962 the tariff Commission belatedly found that the glass industry was heading for oblivion and suddenly agreed with the industry that tariffs were too low. The recommendations of the Commission asked that tariffs be placed at levels even higher than they were under the famous SmootHawley high tariff law.

President Kennedy recognized the danger to the glass industry and ordered the tariff committee's recommendations be put into effect. However,

the