Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Walinsky, International Handbag, Luggage, Belt, and Novelty Workers' Union.

STATEMENT OF OSSIP WALINSKY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL HANDBAG, LUGGAGE, BELT, AND NOVELTY WORKERS' UNION

Mr. WALINSKY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ossip Walinsky. I am president of the International, Handbag, Luggage, Belt and Novelty Workers' Union, a union comprising many trades, essential trades, providing 70,000,000 women of all ages with ladies' handbags and personal leather goods, and tens of millions of travelers with all types of luggage and travel goods. There are more than 1,650 manufacturers in our trades, but close to 90 percent of our employers are smallbusiness men employing, on an average, less than 23 workers.

Yes, in the midst of greatest prosperity, the highest rate of production, the highest rate of income, the highest rate of profits, our members are underemployed and unemployed. The recession in our trades began in 1947 and has continued each year. To cite but one example, the volume of business in the handbag industry, comprising the largest group of all of the five trades we represent, namely, women's handbags and purses, luggage, personal leather goods, belts, and leather-goods novelties this segment of the pocketbook industry employing over 40 percent of the total number of our workers, has dwindled from $200,000,000 at wholesale in 1946 to $135,000,000 in 1951.

The financial position of our manufacturers is precarious. If there were only a congressional committee or a Senate committee hearing today or any other day to investigate the struggle of our manufacturers to maintain themselves in business and the plight and fight of our workers for their very existence.

Speaking of recession and depression in our industry, we cannot help but emphasize the fact that it is the unjustified and discriminatory so-called excise tax in the amount of 20 percent on one hand, and the lowering of the tariff rates from 35 percent to 172 percent on handbags made of reptile and to 20 percent on handbags made of other leathers-yes, these importations from foreign countries-the manufacturers of which pay their labor but a third, and in the best cases only 40 percent, of the wage rates prevailing in our shops-are the greatest contributing factors to the grave crisis in our industry, because the consuming public of America is in open rebellion against the excise tax.

You may think that the wages of the workers of our trades are rather high. We hear of late about the hourly wage rate of miners to the extent of $2.44, and the hourly wage rates of automobile workers of $2.88, of the steel workers getting $1.88 per hour. You will, therefore, permit me to quote from a survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, dated April 1950-the result of which was as follows:

In March-April 1950, the average plant worker in selected leather goods plants had straight-time earnings of 95 cents per hour. Among the five branches of the leather-goods industry studied, over one-third of the workers had hourly earnings of less than 85 cents and more than one-half were earning less than $1 an hour.

Taking into consideration the value of the dollar today as against the value of the dollar in 1940, the workers of our industry, Mr.

Chairman, and I say this respectfully for your kind consideration and attention, are making approximately 4212 cents to 50 cents an hour.

You asked a question before, Mr. Chairman, of why there was a depression in our industry, in the soft-goods industry? My answer is that the wage earners of the country, which are the bulk of our consumers have no dollars to spend on handbags or, for that matter, on any other things.

As you well know, the worker has to live all year round, pay rent all year round, eat every day, not to speak of doctors' bills, dentists' bills, the bills for a little life insurance, et cetera-but, there is no steady employment. There is great unemployment in our tradesthere is great unemployment instead.

Yes, when is a congressional committee or a Senate committee going to investigate the plight of our manufacturers, the plight of our workers, the plight of our trades instead of devoting a whole lot of time to customs simplification bill H. R. 5505? They call it customs simplification bill. My workers-and I represent more than 35,000 in various respective trades-call it the customs assassination bill. Coming now on top of an excise-killing bill and a cutthroat import duty reduction bill, that is the way we feel about it.

Mr. Chairman, and I am here to tell you, we are told that the State Department, the Mutual Security Agency are in favor of the so-called customs simplification bill, H. R. 5505, and are urging favorable action on the bill because cuts in United States Custom red tape would encourage European exports to this country, and that the bill, if passed, would remove the complexities and uncertainties of custom procedures which have been a major deterrent to European exporters new to the American market. Yes, the State Department, the Mutual Security Agency, and all other Government agencies are very much concerned about European exporters-American importers-they are even concerned about the living standards and conditions of the people of India, North Africa, South Africa, Asia, South America and the people all over the world. We should be concerned with the lot of the people all over the world-and, by the way, I. am one of those who believes, together with that great American, now deceased, Wendell Willkie-yes, I believe in one world. But, gentlemen, of the jury-and you are the gentlemen of the jury, the members of the Finance Committee, I am here to tell you that the handbag, luggage, and personal leather goods industry needs a point 4 program of our

own.

We are passing through the gravest crisis in our industry. Our markets are contracting, the volume of business is growing less, the competition is more keen, the vast majority of our manufacturers claim that they are hardly breaking even, not to speak of making profits, the pay envelopes of our workers are shrinking, and for many a month during the year they see no pay envelope at all. Are these factors none of your concern? Are these ailments of no concern to our Government in general and its various agencies in particular? Is there no one to care for the little fellow? Is this so-called customs simplification bill, H. R. 5505, going to pass because we are too poor to have a lobby of our own, too small in numbers to influence decisions of our legislators, too insignificant, too unimportant as trades and industry, though we are essential trades and industry-yes; is it

because we are poor and uninfluential that our rights are going to be trampled upon?

Why the administrative exemptions on alcoholic beverages, snuff, tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes? Because said products are billiondollar monopolies with powerful lobbies behind them?

We are told that Treasury sources explain that under present law, exempting only imports of $1 or less, customs manpower was "dissipated" in collecting duty on trivial amounts and that the raising of the exemption to $10 would not substantially weaken protection for domestic producers. What do the gentlemen of the Treasury Department mean by "not substantially weaken protection for domestic producers"? Do they know that we live in a state of depression, that we need every dollar's worth of goods to be manufactured in our shops? Do they know that some of our workers are crying for a day's work because their unemployment benefits have been exhausted for the year and it is either a day's work or a relief dole or city relief? Do the gentlemen of the State Department, dealing in terms of billions of dollars, know what only a million dollars' worth of business means to as many as 100 small manufacturers?

We are told that under the pending bill the Secretary of the Treasury would hold discretionary powers to prevent abuses and that specifically it meant that the Secretary of the Treasury would be empowered to prevent, for example, a mail-order business from engaging in the direct shipment of dutiable articles to purchasers in the United States.

I am here not only to protest against this so-called customs simplification bill, H. R. 5505, but I am here on record against any discretionary powers vested in the Secretary of the Treasury or any other head of a Government agency. Our experience is the experience of the poor man, the little man, the common man; the sad experience of a man against whom the door is shut, against whom legislators legislate without fear of retaliation politically.

To us the customs simplification bill H. R. 5505 is very plain and simple. It will permit at all times Americans as individuals to purchase by mail order foreign goods up to $10 free from duty and free from excise taxes. That is what it means. That is enough to have all workers in our industry up in arms against the bill. I need not emphasize that in our opinion:

1. The customs simplification bill, H. R. 5505, would mean a direct loss of revenue to the Government.

2. That the bill would mean an appreciable reduction in the collection of Federal, retailer, and manufacturer excise taxes in the United States since the imported items would not be subject to excises.

3. That the duty-free, excise-free shipments from foreign mailorder companies would cause a loss of business to American firms with a resultant loss to the Treasury in income taxes.

Yes, while the Government can stand the loss of revenue and retailers can stand the loss of business and internal revenue officers can stand the loss of income tax collections, I am here to raise my voice in protest against the customs simplification bill, H. R. 5505, because the workers of our trades cannot afford to lose one nickel in wages, nor can our manufacturers afford to lose $1 in business.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the customs simplification, as you will, we trust, because our trades are in that state of de

pression, and because we represent loyal Americans devoted to our country, struggling for our livelihood, we believe that you will not recommend approval of this bill, because that will mean adding not only insult to injury, but greater injury to already a very badly injured industry.

I thank you.

Senator JOHNSON. What does that word "International" mean in your title?

Mr. WALINSKY. It means we have local unions not only in the United States but in Canada, and because of that that is the meaning of "International."

Senator JOHNSON. We can understand how you got to be president of your union.

Mr. WALINSKY. Thank you ever so much.

Senator JOHNSON. Miss Bennett. Miss Julia Bennett, American Library Association.

STATEMENT OF JULIA D. BENNETT, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

Miss BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Julia D. Bennett, and I am director of the Washington office of the American Library Association, which is in the Hotel Congressional.

The American Library Association is a professional organization of 20,000 librarians, trustees, and friends of libraries interested in the development, extension, and strengthening of our Nation's library services. Today I shall speak primarily for the college, university, and large public libraries interested in securing foreign books for scholarship and research purposes. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H. R. 5505.

Since the conclusion of the war, American libraries have been sadly hampered by antiquated customs regulations affecting the importation of books for college, university, and public research libraries. Currently we operate under section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 United States Code, section 1498, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules and regulations for the declaration and entry of merchandise not exceeding $100 in value. Under this provision of the law, the informal entry has been authorized for libraries on importations not exceeding $100 in value.

Two factors have made the $100 limitation unrealistic. First of all book costs have risen steadily since the war, and a $100 shipment now covers a very few books. Moreover, since the war American research libraries have taken more energetic steps to secure European research books. This is because of the fact that during the war American research was crippled by the lack at that time of adequate European books in this country. Several governmental research groups strongly complained about this, and as a result the Library of Congress and the other great Federal libraries, working with the Association of Research Libraries, which is an affiliated national association of the American Library Association, have taken a number of steps to be sure that at least one copy of every important European research book is available in this country.

Secondly, libraries find the "customs declarations" time consuming, often resulting in crippling delays in the receipt of books urgently

needed for research or teaching, and particularly complicated since not continuously used. Currently all books and printed materials imported by libraries are duty free, so that the barrier for libraries has been complicated consular invoices necessary on purchases over $100. In addition, "custom declarations" necessitates the services of a broker and additional clerical help which adds considerably to the cost of the books. It is not necessary, I am sure, to remind the committee that currently all libraries are suffering budgetwise from the inflated dollar.

We are pleased to note in section 15 (b) of H. R. 5505 as reported by the House Ways and Means Committee and passed by the House that section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was amended so as to permit informal entry of merchandise covered by paragraph 1631 without regard to the ceiling in shipments of any value. Educational institutions and public libraries are listed under paragraph 1631.

We urge the passage of H. R. 5505 with particular reference to section 15 as it passed the House whereby libraries may bring into this country, such merchandise as books, maps, and so forth-not intended for resale-under informal entry without regard to a ceiling of any value on shipments.

We know that your committee will consider our problem. We appreciate this opportunity to testify.

Senator JOHNSON. We thank you, Miss Bennett.

Miss BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. John Breckinridge.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, THE DEHYDRATED ONION AND GARLIC INDUSTRY OF AMERICA

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Breckinridge, of the law firm of Pope, Ballard, and Loos, of Washington, D. C. I appear here today on behalf of the Dehydrated Onion and Garlic Industry, which is composed of at least that portion which I represent-Basic Vegetable Products, Inc., Vaccaville, Calif.; Gentry, Înc., of Los Angeles, Calif.; Puccinelli Packing Co., Turlock, Calif.; and J. R. Simplot Dehydrating Co., Caldwell, Idaho.

In order to avoid repeating the facts of the industry that have been stated to this committee and other committees before, I would like to refer to my statement on behalf of the dehydrated onion and garlic industry at pages 551 and 576 of the House Ways and Means Committee hearings on the customs simplification bill now before this committee, which was at that time H. R. 1535; also to my testimony on behalf of the same industry before this committee last year in connection with the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, which was H. R. 1612 at page 930.

Very briefly, these four companies produce over 90 percent or approximately 90 percent of all the dehydrated onions and dehydrated garlic produced in the United States.

They are vitally interested in sections 2, 13, and 20 of H. R. 5505 now before the committee.

We are opposed to those three sections because we do not believe they are germane to any bill designed to simplify customs administration and procedure. We think they are substantive policy changes.

« ПретходнаНастави »