Mr. BYRNES. You say that the Canadians, for instance, do not hav workmen's compensation.

Mr. MCHUGH. They don't have anything, period.

Mr. BYRNES. You have workmen's compensation?

Mr. MCHUGH. We come under the Jones Act for seamen. We hay unemployment insurance. We have about anything and everythin except the minimum-wage law. That doesn't affect us.

Mr. BYRNES. Well, you say your minimum wage is in excess of dollar anyway?

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, as I say, we on the Boston boats have a gua anty of no less than $7 a day regardless of what happens, or how man days. And even more than that; if a certain situation comes abou where we feel that the owner is responsible, if the boat doesn't cat a trip, some accident or something happens, we have always got a average trip on that account.

Mr. BYRNES. Labor, as I understand, is one of the very high iten of cost as far as the fishing industry is concerned. It is a princip item.

Mr. McHUGH. Well, I don't think it is any more so than wor ashore, comparatively speaking.

No, I think it comes out about the same.

Mr. BYRNES. As a part of the cost of the finished product, I mea the labor part of it is a very big percentage.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, yes. You see, we work on the so-called sha system. The owner takes 40 percent. If a boat has $5,000 worth fish, that means the owner takes $2,000, and then he pays the expens out of the other $3,000, and he gives the crew the rest between ther So then, of course, you have your labor ashore, which probably ru 6 or 7 cents a pound. And all in all-Like, our average price last yea was 7 cents. That means right from the knife, 21⁄2 pounds to 1, fro a round fish to a fillet, it means 20 cents right there. Then the buye has another 6 or 7 cents for labor, wrapping, packing, cold storage, an so forth, and it all runs up where our dealer would have to get, sa around 27 or 28 cents a pound. That was before the Tariff Commi sion had those figures. At the same time, the Canadians showed a average of 4 cents per pound. So right there, they had a 10-ce jump. Evidently right as the fish came from the knife, they had 10-cent advantage.

Mr. BYRNES. Thank you.

Mr. JENKINS. Any questions by any other members of the con mittee?

I should like to ask you just this one question. You have read an excerpt from the testimony that you gave last year or the yea before. What was done, if anything, by Congress with reference your pleadings of that time?

Mr. McHUGH. Nothing has been done, to my knowledge, sir. W have been coming in here for several years, and we haven't gotten an relief. We did get the Congress last year to change the law as w thought more in our favor, but as we found out before the Tariff Com mission it didn't mean anything.

Mr. JENKINS. In your prepared text you state: "Also we shoul not have to wait a year for the Commission to make findings." Di you ever carry any case to the Commission?

Mr. MCHUGH. We had a case there last year, and a few days before the year was up they handed out their decision. They kept us waiting, I would say 11 months anyway.

Mr. JENKINS. Any other questions?

That is all. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHUGH. Thank you.

Mr. JENKINS. The next witness is Mr. Mason Case.

Mr. MASON. I will have to say this. He has a good first name. Mr. JENKINS. I want to commiserate with him on the fact that his first name is "Mason." I do not know how we can get along with him. STATEMENT OF MASON CASE, TERMINAL ISLAND, CALIF., REPRESENTING PACIFIC COAST FISH PRODUCERS INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION, FIVE STAR FISH & COLD STORAGE OF SAN DIEGO, AND FISHING VESSEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. CASE. Well, I hope, sir.

Mr. JENKINS. You may state your name and the organization you represent.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mason Case, Terminal Island, Calif. I represent the Pacific Coast Fish Producers Institute, the California Commercial Fisherman's Association, the Five Star Fish & Cold Storage of San Diego, and the Fishing Vessel Owners Association of Seattle, Wash.

The fishermen and boat owners of the Pacific coast are in support of the Simpson bill, H. R. 4294. We support this legislation because it offers greater and better defined protection than has the trade agreements policy of the past.

After our recent experiences in requesting our Government for well deserved aid which was not fothcoming, we feel the present law is not satisfactory. The studies conducted by the Tariff Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service have been of little consequence in solving our problems mainly because we are beyond the point of study and can and have shown actual proof of injury suffered by our group. We desire a law and the administration of that law that needs only proof of injury causing unemployment of American workers and producers or impairment of the national security and not a law which would force us into bankruptcy before need for relief is acknowledged.

The albacore fishing season of 1951 found us in direct competition with Japanese imports of like fish. That season not only caused the American fisherman to discontinue his fishing because of no demand for his product resulting in a total production of only 50 percent normal, but the American product when purchased commanded the lowest price in many years. With the season on other fish closed or again no demand for production as in the bottomfish industry, the fisherman to exist had to seek employment in other industries where he was not qualified to work in the skilled field.

We are possibly the industry most directly concerned with the comparisons of standards of living. We are in direct competition with, for example, the wage rate of the Japanese fishing fleet because mechanization plays little part. Although the Japanese must ship

32604-53-7

frozen fish to this country, it is a fact that the industry there has a great dollar margin over us as exhibited by the fluctuating price paid to the Japanese fishermen.

The fishing fleet approves the change in time from 1 year to 6 months for the Tariff Commission to make its report under the escape clause procedure. In our business, time is of the essence. We have yet to discover a means of communicating with the fish in order to have them wait to be caught after we accomplish long studies and much Washington discussion.

Actual proof of injury as shown by a disrupted season should be proof enough to merit immediate assistance and then, if necessary, a comprehensive study made of the situation. While our Government saw no need for assistance during the recent tuna problem under the present trade agreements policy, the Japanese industry did. They imposed a quota upon themselves which in its original figure might have been reasonable. However, that self-imposed quota has grown from a reasonable figure to the present-day figure which covers an amount equal to the total production of the American fleet and a figure sufficient to include the entire albacore canned market.

A further test of our ability to compete with low-cost labor will arise when we go into a buyers' market and the foreign-produced product will far overshadow us on a cost basis. We are not asking for a law to exclude all imports but rather one that will give the American workman a fair share of production without the loss of our living standards. Experience has demonstrated that the present law does not give us this assurance. I believe the Simpson bill is a step in that direction on our behalf. The present trade agreements policy has simply outlived its usefulness, due to limited application and narrow field.

It seems only sensible to add one member to the Tariff Commission and avert a tie decision due to prejudice or political affiliation.

The clarification of what constitutes injury which should be considered by the Tariff Commission in its peril point filings; the fact that it becomes mandatory upon the President to follow the escape clause and peril-point recommendations of the Tariff Commission; the reduction in time for the Tariff Commission to make its report under the escape clause; the addition of one member to the Tariff Commission make H. R. 4294 attractive to the Facific coast fish producers. We urge, therefore, that the Simpson bill be reported favorably.

Mr. JENKINS. Any questions? Mr. Curtis?

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Case, I would like to find out what trade agreements there are now in effect in regard to your industry, and with what countries.

Mr. CASE. As far as I know, sir, there are not trade agreements covering fresh or frozen tuna.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. That is the reason I was raising the point. Where would you be benefited one way or another, if there are no trade agreements, under the reciprocal-trade authority? How do you figure this will affect your industry?

Mr. CASE. I am afraid I don't quite understand your question, sir. Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Well, my original question was: What trade agreements have been made by the United States that would affect your industry?

Mr. CASE. We have been trying to establish a quota or a tariff with the Japanese, for example, on fresh and frozen fish.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Yes, but at the present time there is no reciprocal-trade agreement that has been negotiated. Is that correct? Mr. CASE. No, sir; as far as I know there is none.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. So the escape clause and all this does not actually apply to your industry?

Mr. CASE. Well, yes; it does, Congressman, when you are analyzing the entire situation. Imports of tuna canned in brine, for example, very greatly affects the revenue to the boats of the fleet. As I say, ostensibly we are looking toward the fresh-frozen, but tuna in brine flooded on the American market certainly hurts it equally as much as the fresh fish does.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Is there a tariff on that now?

Mr. CASE. That is right, sir.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. And your real complaint, then, is that the tariff is not high enough?

Mr. CASE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. But I do not quite see where the Reciprocal Trade Act, except in the event that we did enter into a reciprocal-trade agreement with Japan, for example, would particularly affect you, in connection with the present legislation?

Mr. CASE. We wouldn't be affected on the fresh and frozen, but we certainly would be on the tuna canned in brine.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. On the tuna canned in brine, is there a trade agreement with any country now?

Mr. CASE. Well, of course, there is the present 122-percent duty on that because of a trade agreement with Iceland.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Is that a reciprocal-trade agreement that we have entered into with Iceland? Or don't you know?

Mr. CASE. Yes.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. I might suggest what I am interested in. And I probably should have asked these questions of other industries. There are two aspects to this, as I see it. One is purely procedural, as it affects the method by which we enter into these reciprocal-trade agreements, and have our escape clause provisions applied. The other thing, which seems to me to be entirely separate, is your actual tariffs themselves that might be imposed by the Congress. Now, you do not, apparently have reciprocal-trade agreements; there are no reciprocal-trade agreements in your industry, as I understand it.

Mr. CASE. There is one with Iceland, sir, of 12 percent.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. There is one with Iceland?

Mr. CASE. That is right, sir.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. And how are you people adversely affected by the one with Iceland?

Mr. CASE. Well, in the first place, Congressman, there is no tuna as far as my fleet is concerned, that comes from Iceland, but because of the most-favored-nation policy, Japan reaps the benefit from the agreement negotiated with Iceland.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. I see. So even though we have such an agreement, your industry is unaffected by the reciprocal-trade agreement with Iceland. Thank you.

Mr. JENKINS. If there are no other questions, we thank you. Mr. CASE. Thank you.

Mr. JENKINS. The next witness is Mr. James Waugh.

Is Mr. Waugh here?

STATEMENT OF JAMES WAUGH, PRESIDENT, CANNERY WORKEI UNION OF THE PACIFIC

Mr. WAUGH. Mr. Chairman, my name is James Waugh. I a president of the Cannery Workers of the Pacific, Terminal Island. I also speak in behalf of the Seafarers International Union America, affiliated with the A. F. of L.

My purpose in appearing before this committee is to urge its ado tion of H. R. 4294, otherwise known as the Simpson bill, which cal for a 1-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act.

I do not regard it as necessary to furnish details about the tur canning industry inasmuch as the Ways and Means Committee itsel had the tuna tariff bill before it during the last session of Congres and since full information on the competitive import situation face by the tuna industry was given to the Tariff Commission late i 1951, when the industry, together with the cannery workers and fisher men applied to the Tariff Commission for relief under the escap clause. In 1952, hearings were held before the Senate Finance Com mittee on the tuna tariff bill and, again, the details of our case wer laid before that committee.

This was followed by an investigation, ordered by the Senate Finance Committee and conducted by the Tariff Commission in 1952 That Commission has just made a long report on the industry. parallel study was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the De partment of Interior. That Service went into great detail, as wel as did the Tariff Commission.

Consequently, we do not believe that it should be necessary to supply further information to this committee. Our interest in the present hearing is to urge certain changes in the existing Trade Agreements Act because we feel strongly from our experience with it that it is not satisfactory. We firmly believe that an industry in order to obtain relief under the present escape clause and the present adminis trative setup of the Tariff Commission must be virtually bankrupt before there would be any hope og gaining relief from that source.

The Simpson bill was especially designed to improve the administration of the escape clause under the Tariff Commission. The bill was not hastily thrown together but is the result of several years experience and of close study and discussion.

of

Most of our competition comes from Japan and it is a well-known fact that wages in Japan are far below those paid in this country. We also have competition from Peru, and wages there are also below ours, although not as much so as in Japan. We think that the best system of protection from low-wage countries wage competition lies in establishing an import quota which would permit these other countries to enjoy a reasonable share of this market without having the power to break down our wage standards and without displacing workers.

our

I want to say as plainly as I can that we believe that extension of the Trade Agreements Act in its present form would expose us danger