We also point out that three times since the duty was accorded us in the Tariff Act of 1930, under the Reciprocal Trade Act, the duty has been drastically reduced, until at the present time they have reached the minimum established in the Extension Act of 1945. Under those reductions, and on a postwar basis, imports have increased very drastically, and with the increase in the imports, the price of the imported product has regularly declined. In 1950, 337,000 pounds, at a price of 59 cents; in 1951, 432,000 pounds at a price of 59 cents; in 1952, 955,000 pounds at a price of 59 cents. However, the first 2 months of 1953, 220,000 pounds have been imported, and the price has declined 2 cents per pound net drained. weight. Of the 220,000 pounds that have come in, 200,000 pounds of those have been imported from France, and that price has declined from 59 cents on an average value from last year to 53 cents this year. Under date of April 6, a New York importer offered French mushrooms at New York at $5.76 per 8-ounce dozen, against our domestic price freely offered to the trade in the New York market at $7.50 a dozen. On the second quality, pieces and stems, French mushrooms were offered at $4.375 per dozen against our price of $5.50 per dozen. With the trend that has been going on, we fear that we are going to return to the competition, especially from France, that we had during 1928 and 1929 prior to the enactment of the Tariff Act of 1930, wherein between 7 and 8 million pounds net drained weight of mushrooms, almost entirely from France, entered this country. We are subject to the wage and hour law. France and other producers as far as we know are not subject to any restriction of that nature. The domestic mushroom industry has no support price nor do we ask for any support price. Domestic competition keeps prices to the consumer down to a reasonable figure. However, the tariff is the only safeguard that we have to protect our industry, and we are asking for support for H. R. 4294 as the best avenue, because we have been denied anything that we consider fair treatment on the part of the Committee for Reciprocity Information on three previous occasions. That is my direct statement, Mr. Chairman. Before I answer any questions, Mr. Park is going to speak about specific injuries and then both of us will be free for questions. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask one question before he starts. They do raise many mushrooms in upper New York, do they not? Mr. MAULE. Yes, around the Catskills, Hudson, and eastern New York. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF J. B. PARK, PRESIDENT, BRANDYWINE MUSHROOM CORP. Mr. PARK. At this time the only thing I would like to add is the fact that France is the principal exporter to this country, and the French Government subsidizes the French exporters which makes the price extremely low inasmuch as their price without subsidy is very much lower than ours. The situation in our industry follows virtually the same pattern that you have been hearing all day. (Mr. Park submitted the following for the record :) [From the Journal of Commerce, New York, April 23, 1953], By Ed Walzer SUCCESS STORY There's money to be made in mushrooms. That goes for the fresh, canned, and, to some extent, the dried product, and for imported as well as domestic varieties. A case in point is the experience of the Societe Francais de Champignonnieres. This group, composed of a number of small independent growers, was organized after World War II by Ernest Durand, a French banker with a keen understanding of American marketing methods. Today, according to T. G. Koryn, their United States representative, Societe Francais de Champignonnieres is so overwhelmed with orders that deliveries are almost 3 months behind schedule. The potential demand, it seems, has hardly been tapped. Societe Francais de Champignonnieres has been concentrating almost entirely on the institutional trade. Sales are through importers, who solicit private label business. Volume is growing by leaps and bounds, and is straining the capacity of the largest mushroom canning plant in Western Europe. The 1952 gross of $500,000 will be doubled this year, barring unforseen developments. There are two big reasons for the success of this young organization: (1) The price of a No. 10 can is lower than competing domestic brands, and (2) M. Durand, unlike many European food manufacturers, does things the American way. The lower price results from financial arrangements with the French Government which permit the product to be sold here below actual cost. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say this. France, I notice, has just reduced her income tax and business taxes, and of course, if you could get some reductions in this country, it would be rather helpful; would it not? Mr. PARK. It would. Mr. MAULE. It would be. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your statement, and are very much interested in the line of business you are in. Mr. MAULE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Sidney Feinberg of the United States Trunk Co., Fall River, Mass. Is Mr. Feinberg here? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Apparently he is not. Mr. Jacob Citronbaum, Luggage and Leather Goods Manufacturers of America, New York City. Is he here? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. He does not appear to be. He has a statement which will be filed in the record at this time. (The statement is as follows:) MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY LUGGAGE AND LEATHER GOODS MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, INC., AND PRESENTING STATISTICS AND FACTS RELATIVE TO LUGGAGE AND PERSONAL LEATHER GOODS IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES AND EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES-BY JACK CITRONBAUM, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Re H. R. 4294, a bill introduced by Richard M. Simpson to extend the authority of the President to enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The articles covered by this memorandum are included under Tariff rate in 1952 (percent) Description PAR. 1531. Bags, baskets, belts, satchels, card cases, pocketbooks, jewel boxes, portfolios, and other boxes and cases, not jewelry, wholly or in chief value of leather or parchment, and manufactures of leather, rawhide, or parchment, or of which leather, rawhide, or parchment is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for: Bags, baskets, belts, satchels, pocketbooks, jewel boxes, portfolios, other boxes and cases; coin purses, change purses, billfolds, bill cases, bill rolls, bill purses, bank-note cases, currency cases, pass cases, passport cases, letter cases, and similar flat leather goods; strops and straps; buckles designed to be worn on the person, and other wearing apparel; leads, leashes, collars, muzzles, and similar dog equipment; and all articles other than the foregoing: Wholly or in chief value of reptile leather__. If products of Cuba.. Other Articles of luggage (except bags, satchels, portfolios, boxes, and Any of the foregoing permanently fitted and furnished with travel- LUGGAGE AND PERSONAL LEATHER GOODS IN THE UNITED STATES At the outset, it might be well to point out that the products which are the chief concern of this memorandum are Luggage and related articles (include suitcases, valises, satchels, traveling and overnight bags, hatboxes, trunks, and other luggage; and boxes, caskets, chests, baskets, rolls, brief cases, and other cases, except handbags, and flat leather goods): Fitted with traveling, bottle, drinking, dining, or lunching, sewing, manicure, and similar sets: Wholly or in chief value of reptile leather Other Not fitted: Wholly or in chief value of reptile leather Coin purses, change purses, billfolds, bill cases, bill rolls, bill purses, bank- The Luggage and Leather Goods Manufacturers of America, Inc., is an association comprised of manufacturers of these products, and is national in scope, drawing its membership from all parts of the United States. The association represents the manufacturers of this country who produce approximately 95 percent of the total value of the products above mentioned. The association's authority to act on behalf of the entire luggage and personal leather-goods industry is well recognized by the Department of Commerce of the United States under whose auspices the association sponsored and successfully concluded such programs as Luggage Standardization (R215-46 National Bureau of Standards), and Fair Trade Practice Rules and Regulations for Luggage and Related Products (Federal Trade Commission). The association was also recognized as the proper representative of its industry by the National Production Authority, the Office of Price Stabilization, and all temporarily created war agencies. The majority of the manufacturers of luggage and personal leather goods are in contractual relationship with labor unions, either affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or the Congress of Industrial Organizations. (a) Size and location of the luggage and personal leather goods industry in the United States There are approximately 750 manufacturers of luggage and personal leather goods in the United States, and they are principally located as follows: (b) Materials used in the manufacture of luggage and personal leather goods Luggage and personal leather goods are end products manufactured of many component parts. In luggage, wood, steel, leather, imitation leather, silks, rayons, linens, nylon, pyroxylin coated cloths, and brass, make up some of the most important ingredients. In personal leather goods, leather, imitation leather, zippers, plastics, linens, nylons, silks, and cotton are used. It is important to note in this connection that practically all these component parts of both these products are made in the United States. These materials are subject to the high wage standards and high costs prevalent in American industry, and necessarily result in high prices being paid for these supplies by the manufacturers of luggage and personal leather goods. In personal leather goods, where much of the leather used is imported in the form of hides and skins, the finishing into leather of various styles and dyes is done in the United States. Many of these hides and skins coming into this country, carry a duty, under the Tariff Act, of 5 percent. It is academic, and beyond the pale of contradiction, to state the fact that the highest standard of living prevails here in the United States. To maintain such fundamentals, higher standards exist for material, labor, overhead, and all elements going into the item of cost of production. It is important, therefore, in considering the questions at issue, to place emphasis upon the fact that practically all component parts of the products here represented are made under American standards and conditions. Consequently, it is important to point out that not only are the products of the industry made under the highest standards in existence in any part of the world, but that all component parts going into the final products of our industry are also manufactured under the highest standards, both as to materials and as to labor, as exist anywhere in the world. The situation, therefore, combines the highest standards in supplies as well as in end products. (c) Labor in the luggage and personal leather goods industry The luggage and personal leather goods industry employs approximately 20,000 persons. About half of these employees are highly skilled, and have gone through periods of apprenticeship. Many of these employees have spent upward of half their mature lives employed within the industry. It is quite conceivable and a fact easily anticipated that should the tariff rates on luggage and personal leather goods be reduced any further, many of these employees who know no other work would be thrown out of work and become public charges. The first years after the war saw a strong upsurge in filling the pent-up demand for luggage and leather goods and a commensurate increase in employment. Since the peak year of 1947, luggage consumption has decreased and employment has suffered thereby. In the personal leather goods industry tremendous strides and expansion took place during the war years and this made for the employment of additional thousands of people, all of whom have been trained and who are now devoting their entire energies to the manufacture of products of this industry. The proportion of labor cost to total cost in the luggage industry is approximately 25 percent. In the personal leather goods industry it is approximately 33% percent. As will be indicated hereinafter, of the countries now involved in tariff negotiations, the great proportion of luggage and personal leather goods imported into the United States comes from the United Kingdom. A comparison of wages and hours between the United States and the United Kingdom is in order. According to the April 1953 issue of the Monthly Labor Review published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, the average weekly hours in the other leather products industries, for the month of January 1953, was 39.2 hours. The average hourly wage for the same month was $1.316 and the average weekly earning was $51.59. These figures, of course, are general figures, covering all leather products industries. According to the best available information, the average weekly hours in the trunks, suitcase, and luggage industry, for the month of January 1953, was 37.8 hours. The average hourly wage in the same month was $1.60 per hour, and the average weekly earning was $60.48. In the personal leather goods industry, which covers such items as billfolds, card cases, key cases, coin purses, etc., the average weekly hours in the month of January 1953 was 40 hours. The average hourly wage for this same month was $1.45 per hour, and the average weekly earning was $58. According to all information available at this time, workers in the United Kingdom, in the leather goods, luggage, handbag, belts, and harness industries, in the month of October 1952, had an average workweek of 47.5 hours and an average hourly rate of 43 pence per hour for male workers and 26.5 pence for female workers, and an overall average of 39.5 pence per hour for all workers. The aveage hourly rate for male workers, when converted into United States cur rency, is approximately 45 cents per hour. This would make for an average weekly wage of approximately $21.38 as against the average weekly wage previously mentioned for employees in this industry in the United States. When it is considered that the United Kingdom is the chief exporter of luggage and leather goods to the United States, it is quite obvious, from the figures above mentioned, that merchandise can be produced in the United Kingdom at a labor cost so much less than that which exists in the United States as to make imports from the United Kingdom a real threat to our industry. In France and Italy, there are a large number of luggage and personal leather good factories, most of them small in size and using machinery comparable with the American industry, and employing workers on an average of 40 to 44 hours per week who earn approximately $100 per month. Therefore, these countries, too, with their low cost of production, can very seriously affect American industry and its products by imports into the United States in quantity. It is a known fact that labor organizations in the United States are constantly on the alert for shorter workweeks and for greater average hourly wages. The situation in the luggage and personal leather goods industry is no exception to this general trend. It can be said, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the labor organizations controlling labor in the luggage and personal leather goods industry, will make demands, at every opportune moment, which will of necessity increase the cost of production of American manufacturers. Such demands, based on collective bargaining rather than on Government control, have produced results in the past which have raised the standard of living of the employees in the industry rather than lowered them. Another factor which must be taken into consideration is that in countries whose products are imported and which compete with those manufactured in the United States, subsidies by the Government are the rule rather than the exception. In the United States, of course, Government subsidies in products other than farm products are unknown. It is natural to assume, therefore, that industry which is subsidized can at all times be in a position most favorable to |