The majority of the manufactures of hard fiber cordage and twine in this country fall in the category of small business. Many of the mills are located in small communities where they contribute substantially to the economy of the community and where there is little possibility of absorption of workers who lose their jobs because of import competition. We urge that the committee and Congress favorably consider H. R. 4294 for the following reasons: 1. We believe that experience with the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 over the past 2 years amply demonstrates the need for the amendments set forth in H. R. 4294. Insofar as the cordage industry is concerned, these amendments are vital to the maintenance of the industry as it is presently comprised. One of the most important of these amendments is the inclusion of "impairment of the national security" among the criteria for consideration by the Tariff Commission in passing on applications for relief or proposed tariff concessions. We believe that it is necessary that Congress declare its intention in this respect since it does not appear in the past that the requirements of national security have received due consideration in tariff matters. 2. We believe that it is vitally important, if the intent of Congress is to be carried out, that the findings and determinations of the Tariff Commission in tariff matters be made final, otherwise such matters may be decided on the basis of foreign trade policy rather than on the criteria provided by the Congress. 3. The change in the criteria from "serious injury" to "injury" should be very helpful. There is no reason why the American working man or American industry should be penalized by having to wait until "serious" injury is sustained before seeking relief. The use of the word "serious" is ambiguous. This requirement also tends to work the greatest hardship on the smaller elements in the industry. 4. We do not believe that a duty represents a complete answer in all cases to our import problem. As an example, Mexico is the largest producer of henequin fiber, which we use mainly for the manufacture of binder twine. Immediately after Korea this industry purchased large quantities of henequen from Mexico for delivery during 1951. With increased business, due to Korea, fiber came into short supply. During 1951 Mexico delayed shipments of fiber under our contracts and gave the fiber to Mexican mills. The United States industry in order to fulfill its commitments was compelled to buy other fiber on the world market at substantially increased prices. At the same time, Mexican mills shipping into this market continued to receive fiber at the low prices which prevailed shortly after Korea and were, therefore, able to sell their products in this market at much lower prices than similar United States manufactured products and, in some cases, at prices even below the cost of the raw fiber to the United States manufacturer. We believe it is in the best interests of the American people to protect American mills against possible future repetition. This we consider is an unfair import practice and a determination to that effect should be within the sole province of the Tariff Commission. 5. From time to time, Mexico and other countries have applied lower taxes on the export of manufactured fiber products than were applied to the export of fiber, thus giving local manufacturers an advantage over the United States manufacturer who imports the fiber. The antidumping and countervailing duty provisions as now appearing in existing laws apparently do not cover these circumstances. These provisions are ineffectual because serious injury can be done before the required investigation can be completed. There appears to be no effective way of controlling situations of this sort except by the imposition of import quotas. In conjunction with a study of this brief, I respectfully request a careful examination of the tables which are attached and to which I have referred without reading the long and detailed figures. I feel you will agree with me that such reference indicates a troubled and unsettled industry, whose need is real and for whom assistance is mandatory. We urge favorable action on H. R. 4294. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your appearance. Any questions? If not, thank you. Mr. METCALF. Thank you. (The tables referred to are as follows:) HARD FIBER CORDAGE AND TWINE MANUFACTURERS American Manufacturing Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. St. Louis Cordage Mills, St. Louis, Mo. Badger Cordage Mills, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis. Cating Rope Works, Inc., Maspeth, N. Y. Columbian Rope Co., Auburn, N. Y. Edwin H. Fitler Co., Philadelphia, Pa., and New Orleans, La. Cupples Company Manufacturers, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y. Hooven & Allison Co., Xenia, Ohio Thomas Jackson & Son Co., Reading, Pa. New Bedford Cordage Co., New Bedford, Mass. Peoria Cordage Co., Peoria, Ill. Plymouth Cordage Co., North Plymouth, Mass., New Orleans, La. E. T. Rugg Co., Newark, Ohio Tubbs Cordage Co., San Francisco, Calif. Tubbs Cordage Co., Seattle, Wash. Great Western Cordage Co., Orange, Calif. Wall Rope Works, Inc., New York, N. Y., Beverly, N. J. Whitlock Cordage Co., New York, N. Y., Jersey City, N. J. 32604-53- -20 1 Years 1943-45 are production figures. 2 Total exports all products. Not available. Sources: Sales, United States private industry: Cordage Institute, years 1935-42 and 1946-53 reports of sales by United States private industry. Sales, prisons: Wardens' biennial reports, years 1935-46 (excluding 1940); Bureau of Labor Statistics, year 1940: Cordage Institute, years 1947-53. Imports and exports: Division of Customs Statistics, U. S. Department of Commerce. 1 Cordage Institute, years 1935-42 and 1916-53 reports of sales by United States private industry. Wardens' biennial reports, years 1935-46 (excluding 1940); Bureau of Labor Statistics, year 1910; Cordage Institute, years 1947–23. Division of Customs Statistics U. S. Depa tment of Commerce. 'Years 1913-45 are productio figures. Years 1918-51, estimated baler twine deducted, based on consular reports. Not available. TABLE NO. 3.-Binder-twine sales, exports, and imports 1 United States private industry sales include imports from Canada and are therefore somewhat overestimated. * Wardens biennial reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cordage Institute. Not available. Believed less than 500,000 pounds in 1952. Sources: Sales, United States private industry, Cordage Institute, years 1936-42 and 1946-53 reports of sales by United States private industry. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. J. B. Park, president of Brandywine Mushroom Corp., accompanied by Mr. Walter W. Maule, executive secretary of the Mushroom Growers Cooperative Association, Kennett Square, Pa. STATEMENT OF WALTER W. MAULE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MUSHROOM GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, KENNETT SQUARE, PA. Mr. MAULE. Mr. Chairman, in complying with your request for brevity, we will file our statement, copies of which I am sure each. member of the committee has before him, with one change. The next to the last line, "urge the passage of H. R. 4294, with its amendments which afford an avenue of relief from low-priced imports." With that change, I offer that for inclusion in the record. MUSHROOM GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The cultivated mushroom industry in the United States represents an investment of more than $50 million. It gives employment to about 14,000 persons. Commercial mushroom production occurs in at least 25 States; however, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Chio, California, Washington, Oregon, and Michigan account for at least 80 percent of the annual production of about 70 million pounds. About one third of the annual crop is marketed in fresh form; two thirds of the crop is processed either as canned mushroom or as mushroom soup. Mushrooms are generally a seasonal crop. Canning permits year round marketing in processed form; it also allows for distribution in all markets of the United States. Except for a few cavern operations, the industry produces over 90 percent of the annual crop on farms in specially constructed buildings designed for, and only usable for, mushroom growing. The investment in these mushroom houses is about $40 million. The farmer who grows the mushrooms has become increasingly dependent upon the processor as an outlet for a large part of his crop. The success of the processor in marketing the annual pack is largely dependent, upon the competitive situation in the various markets. Three times, under the Reciprocal Trade Treaty Act, the Government has made drastic reductions in the duty on canned mushrooms, as shown below: 1930 Act, 45 percent ad valorem and 10 cents per pound. World unrest kept mushroom imports at a low level for a decade; however, since the last tariff reductions were made, the 1952 imports more than doubled those of the preceding year, and, imports for the first 2 months of 1953 indicate that this year canned mushroom imports will exceed those of any of the last 20 years. This association, whose membership produces at least 60 percent of America's mushrooms, has unsuccessfully protested all proposed reductions of the canned mushroom tariffs. We have filed briefs and regularly appeared before the Committee for Reciprocity Information. We feel that the mushroom industry deserves better treatment than it has received. Because of this belief, the board of directors have authorized this statement and urge the passage of H. R. 4294, with amendments which afford an avenue of relief from low-priced imports. Respectfully submitted. MUSHROOM GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIARION OF PENNSYLVANIA, Mr. MAULE. Our statement outlines the extent of the domestic mushroom industry, Mr. Chairman. We point out the importance of the canned-mushroom industry as an important outlet to mushrooms from the farm. |