refusing to exercise their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the men you have represented can always be proud of the fact that you have fought the battle that you have fought. And I think you will still do some fighting yet.

Mr. CENERAZZo. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. M. C. Firestone, secretarytreasurer, United Wallpaper Craftsmen and Workers of North America, York, Pa.

STATEMENT OF M. C. FIRESTONE, REPRESENTING THE UNITED WALLPAPER CRAFTSMEN AND WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, YORK, PA.

Mr. FIRESTONE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is M. C. Firestone. My statement is on behalf of the United Wallpaper Craftsmen and Workers of North America, AFL, representing the skilled craftsmen and workers in the wallpaper-manufacturing industry and the print-cutting-manufacturing industry.

This statement is being submitted on behalf of the United Wallpaper Craftsmen and Workers of North America in connection with the current hearings now being conducted by the committee on H. R. 4294, amending the present Trade Agreements Act.

This international union urges the enactment of legislation providing adequate measures for appropriate relief from economic hardships resulting from the unfair competition of imports under the present Trade Agreements Act. We earnestly contend that the existing legislation is oppressive in that there is no adequate provision by means of which relief can be obtained by an industry such as the wallpapermanufacturing industry. It is quite clear that current trends in the wallpaper industry in the United States, if not abated, must inevitably result in irreparable injury and oppressive economic hardships, not only to management but also to the employees in the industry.

During the past few years, this international union has continuously, but unavailingly, sought to stem the rising tide of disaster. All previous efforts to advise congressional committees and departmental agencies concerning the economic evils resulting from the impact of the current trade agreements program on this industry have been futile. As a result, representatives of management and labor in this industry have been compelled to stand by helplessly watching the meteoric rise of wallpaper imports. The employees in this industry have been and are being adversely affected by the incoming flood of wallpaper imports.

Already more than 30 percent of the industry's employees are currently laid off and have been denied any hope of reemployment within the foreseeable future. Even more, the remaining employees in the industry have become increasingly apprehensive concerning their own economic security, in view of the relentless progressive rights of wallpaper inportation.

Surely it is not necessary to document the statistics of importation to prove the assertion concerning the unprecedented growth of wallpaper imports. Those figures are available to the staff members of this committee. Statistically the physical volume of finished wall

paper imports may appear on casual examination to be of small overall consequence. But the critical factor is that these imports are increasingly depriving American manufacturers of the very core of the domestic market. (This is the section of the market in which papers of high eye appeal and decorating value are distributed in substantial rollage volume.)

In 1950 it was estimated that imports had already displaced 15 percent of domestic manufacturers' delivery of comparable goods. Today that figure is in the range of 25 to 30 percent, and it still is on a sharply rising trend.

During the past 15 years the number of rolls of wallpaper imported rose 546.7 percent. During the same period domestic production decreased approximately 25 percent.

The shocking rate of increase of wallpaper imports is revealed by the realization that during the first 7 months of the 1952-53 season, all wallpaper imports increased 404.3 percent over the same period a

year ago.

In a market in which nearly one-third of all of the employees have been laid off, this startling percentage rise in imports during the cur rent season must be regarded as desperately alarming. In view of such circumstances, the voice of protest should not go unheeded and the prophecy of economic hardship should not be disregarded.

The crucial nature of the developing crisis in the wallpaper indus try is best demonstrated by an analysis of previous experience. This industry has already experienced earlier impacts of discriminatory importation policies, and an examination of such experience will dramatize the need for current remedial action.

The economic status of the employees in this industry has been raised to the present level after a long history of collective-bargaining activities which commenced on or about July 23, 1883, when the first Wallpaper Machine Printers Union was organized as a local assembly of the Knights of Labor. It has been and is the objective of the union to unite all craftsmen and workers in the industry under the union jurisdiction to advance and protect their economic interests. The establishment of satisfactory terms and conditions of employment and the promotion of the general welfare have been achieved by the concerted and collective activities carried on by the union down through the years of its organizational history. We take pride in the fact that the skill of the craftsmen in this industry is among the highest in American industry. Four years of apprenticeship training are required for machine printers and color mixers, and 5 years of such training are required as a prerequisite to certification as a print cutter. As a result of the union's far-reaching program, progressive improvements in terms and conditions of employment have been established, so that a specification of current working conditions constitutes a proud record of American industrial democracy in the wallpaper-manufacturing industry.

Mr. JENKINS. Let me ask you a question. You are making a very important statement there. Is that general? Now, you say the labor relationships have been splendid. You have been very proud of those relationships. Well, have you had any strikes that have been very destructive?

Mr. FIRESTONE. No, sir.

Mr. JENKINS. My point is this, you see. You could easily show quite a good return from those who did make these understandings, and still there might have been a very disastrous condition that prevailed among a few.

Mr. FIRESTONE. We have lost no part of the industry through labor strife.

Mr. JENKINS. That is what I wanted to bring out, to be sure.

Mr. FIRESTONE. The present program constitutes the culmination of decades of continued collective effort and activity. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the impact of the current reciprocal trade tariff policy on this industry, employees are losing their long-standing jobs, and the entire program of working conditions is endangered. The working standards which we have indefatigably sought to raise will inevitably be impoverished. This small American industry must surely succumb to the overwhelming assaults of merchandise now being increasingly imported.

Mr. JENKINS. May I ask you, there: Do you state any place in your paper here how many people are employed in your organization? Mr. FIRESTONE. Our organization, which represents about 85 percent of the production employees in the wallpaper-manufacturing industry, at the present time has a membership of about 3,950.

Mr. JENKINS. Then those that are organized or not organized would be about 5,000 all together?

Mr. FIRESTONE. Approximately 5,000; yes.

Mr. JENKINS. All right.

Mr. FIRESTONE. This union emphasizes its acceptance of the basic purposes of the current reciprocal trade agreement program. However, it should be recognized as elementary justice, that the foreigntrade policy should be administered so that its impact will be apportioned equitably. It certainly should be consistent with a reciprocal trade-agreement program to recognize that a very small industry such as wallpaper manufacturing requires protection from disintegration, and that such protection as will insure the industry's survival will not undermine the essential purposes of the reciprocal tradeagreement program. It is, of course, an axiom to point out that a given volume of imports can be absorbed by a large American industry, and that the same amount of such imports can only result in the destruction of a small American industry through unfair competition. Special circumstances exist in this industry at the present time which make our working standards vulnerable. A retrospective survey of our history clearly dramatizes our current peril. Prior to 1921 American print cutters were employed continuously throughout the year under working conditions which assured them economic security on the basis of current conditions. Prior to 1921 it was necessary to affix the union stamp on all rollers and blocks which were used in printing wall paper. As a result employers were not permitted to use imported print rollers or blocks. However, in 1921 the union-stamp clause was withdrawn from the contract and immediately the wallpaper manufacturers commenced purchasing foreignmade rollers and blocks imported from Germany, France, England, and Belgium.

A survey conducted in 1923 by the United States Tariff Commission revealed that print rollers produced in foreign countries had an average declared value of approximately $9.68 per roller. With addi

tional costs such as freight, insurance, et cetera, the landed cost without duties approximated $11.38 per roller. At the same time the Tariff Commission found that American print rollers were manufactured in American shops at an overall average cost of $34.73, approximately 300 percent higher than the typical foreign importation. Under such circumstances, the entire American print-cutting craft was disinte grated as American employers commenced a foreign importation purchasing program.

Between 1921 and 1930, when the 1930 Tariff Act was enacted, the American print-cutting industry almost disappeared. Union conditions were rendered nugatory. The nefarious economic practice of homework became widespread. As the American shops disappeared small home shops sprang up and former union members, previously employed on a basis of economic security, were induced to compete with one another in a tobogganing market. The economic aristocracy of the American craft was disintegrated. Highly skilled print cutters, after many years of artisanship development, found themselves competing against each other and the European market, and soon were earning $8 to $10 per week for 60 and 70 hours of work. Such work was being done in garages, basements, attics, bedrooms, and outlying shacks. In many instances, these highly skilled craftsmen were compelled to go on public relief rolls to supplement their starvation income.

The passage of the 1930 Tariff Act did not rehabilitate the disintegrated print cutters craft in America. The economic demoralization of the depression made impossible the reorganization of the craft or the reinstatement of the earlier union program of economic security. Actually, the 1930 tariff, with the subsequent modifications of 1939 and 1941, have not been and are not a protection against the destructive and disastrous unfair foreign importation hereinabove described. The reconstruction of the print-cutting craft occurred only after 1937, when the union-stamp clause was reinstated in the union contract in the wallpaper manufacturing industry. Between 1937 and 1947, these highly skilled craftsmen were able to reconstitute their craft and trade, because imported rollers and blocks were prohibited in the industry under the standard form of union contract for the wallpaper manfacturing industry.

However, in 1947, the Congress of the United States enacted the Labor-Management Relations Act, under which the employers in this industry refused to retain the union-stamp clause in the standard form of union contract for the wallpaper manufacturing industry. As a result, the print cutters in this industry became subject to the fact situation which existed in 1921. Upon the elimination of the unionstamp clause, the employers have been able to purchase foreign print rollers and blocks which can be imported at a tremendously lower cost than such rollers or blocks can be manufactured under the provisions of our standard union contract.

As a result of the promotion of foreign importation under our foreign trade policy program, agents from Germany and England are promoting the sale of foreign rollers and blocks. Unless adequate tariff barriers are erected, the print cutters in this industry must again be subjected to a disastrous repetition of the disintegration of their trade and craft.

Our union demands and has a right to expect protection against impoverishment of our American standards of living, particularly when such impoverishment inevitably results from the effectuation of a governmental foreign trade policy program. As American citizens, we protest against the economic pauperization of an entire group of American craftsmen resulting from the indiscriminate and nonintelligent application of a reciprocal tariff program.

The above-described experience resulting from the importation of print rollers constitute a dire warning. The collapse of the printroller industry resulted from the operation of economic forces which will also cause the collapse of the entire American wallpaper industry, unless adequate measures are provided by law for effective remedial treatment. As hereinabove pointed out, the current promotion of unlimited foreign importations has already created an acute layoff problem throughout this industry. The continued progressive flooding of the American market with imported wallpaper and print rollers must, of course, create cumulative disemployment. As job opportunities become increasingly circumscribed, it should be realized that consequent economic dislocation of hundreds of American workers will result.

The tragedy is greater because of the fact that no significant purpose is served by the withholding of tariff protection required in this industry. Our industry is so infinitesimal a segment of the American economy that the tariff protection which will save this industry from destruction cannot possibly impair the general reciprocal trade program. Moreover, even if the latter contention be disputed, certainly there can be no harm in providing for adequate administrative procedure by means of which this matter can be effectively investigated and dealt with.

The proposed legislation would appear to be mandatory as an extension of the well-founded principle of procedural fair play. It is difficult to understand how anyone can withhold relief in a fact situation in which the economic necessity for such relief has been adequately established. In short, this union is not requesting special or preferred treatment. It would seem reasonable that minimum standards of fair play would dictate the need for statutory machinery under which relief can be guaranteed in those cases where a proper showing can be made.

In this little industry we have been proud of the economic security which we have established. No one can possibly adversely criticize our plea for procedural safeguards by which that economic security can be preserved. The trustees of our national welfare must surely agree that we are consistent with the American tradition in our concerted attempt to prevent the disintegration of the economic standards which we have fought so valiantly to establish.

This committee is empowered to recommend a legislative amendment under which impending economic disaster in this industry can be prevented. Surely the public policy of the United States demands affirmative recognition of the duty of Congress to enact such legislation. It cannot be denied that the adoption of the proposed amendment will provide the administrative process by means of which the employers and workers in American industry can cooperate in maintaining the integrity of their respective industries.