would lose all their seniority, which, to a man in the shop, is his biggest asset as he gets older. The CHAIRMAN. That is, they are specialists in their particular line? Mr. GUMPERT. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And they have not been making anything but motorcycles and motorcycle parts? Mr. GUMPERT. The only thing we have manufactured in 50 years is motorcycles. The CHAIRMAN. Now, which do you think is worth the most to Milwaukee as a city? The profits that you make, or the payroll money that your employees spend in the support of stores, churches, and all the activities that go to make a city?" Mr. GUMPERT. To the city of Milwaukee, our payroll is our most valuable asset. The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. Mr. GUMPERT. Because that is where it is spent. The CHAIRMAN. And is that not true of most of the payrolls in this country? Mr. GUMPERT. I should imagine so; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And certainly you are not one of those who believe that we should export our payrolls and give other countries the benefit abroad of the payrolls and then put our people on relief while they seek other work? Mr. GUMPERT. I certainly am not. The CHAIRMAN. And England, according to the testimony given, discriminates in every possible way against your motorcycles. Mr. GUMPERT. In every way. We aren't able to ship motorcycles to one single place in the British Empire except Canada, and we haven't been allowed to do that since the Second World War, except that we had an order of 15 and one of 10 back in 1947, and those are the only ones we have had. The CHAIRMAN. You have certainly made a very nice case. Mr. Jenkins will now assume the chair. I will have to go to the House floor to vote. Mr. JENKINS (presiding). The gentleman from Michigan will inquire. Mr. KNOX. I would like to ask the witness: What has been your employment experience, on the average, over the past 5 years? Mr. GUMPERT. Our peak employment was in 1948, when we had our peak year in motorcycle production. Since that time, our employment has gone down each year, until at the present time it is about half what it was in 1948. Mr. KNOX. About half of what is was in 1948? Mr. GUMPERT. Could I get this other statement I have in my bag? I can tell you that. I can give you the figures since 1946, which was right after the war, when the demand for motorcycles was very great, much greater than we could meet. We were stepping up our production. We bought a new plant in 1947, for $12 million. We spent about $22 million for equipment, and we naturally upped our employment: 1946, 1,872, all shop employees; 1947, 2,060; 1948, 2,458; 1949, 2,302; 1950, after the devaluation in September 1949, 1,702; in 1951, 1,532; in 1952, 1,389. 32604-53-6 Mr. KNOX. You have shown a rapid decrease in employment. Mr. KNOX. In shop employment, year by year. Mr. GUMPERT. I might also add that in 1952, about 10 percent of our total production was on subcontracts, and this 1,389 was partly employed on subcontracts. So that for motorcycle production the employment was actually lower, but I can't give you the exact figure. Mr. KNOX. In other words, you have subcontracts of another nature in your factory? Mr. GUMPERT. That is right. Mr. KNOX. That is all. Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. Mr. JENKINS. Very well. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. MASON. Your testimony, that I listened to, is an excellent, specific, definite illustration of how Great Britain protects her industries and we fail to protect ours. Is that right? Mr. GUMPERT. Yes, sir. Mr. MASON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JENKINS. Is there anyone else to inquire? If not, the next witness on the list is Mr. John F. Linehan. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. LINEHAN, GENERAL MANAGER, SEAFOOD PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW BEDFORD, MASS., INC., NEW BEDFORD, MASS. Mr. LINEHAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John Linehan, general manager of the Seafood Producers Association of New Bedford, Mass., Inc., a nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the promotion and general welfare of the New Bedford fishing industry. Our organization is made up mainly of boatowners who operate 170 commercial deep-sea trawlers fishing out of New Bedford, and of allied industries such as marine machine shops and railways, boatyards, and ship chandlers. The fishing industry in New Bedford represents a capital investment of about $80 million, and the employment derived directly from the industry includes about 3,500 individuals. Counting the families of the employees, approximately 10,000 people in New Bedford depend upon the fishing industry for their livelihood. It follows, then, that as the representative of the fishing industry in New Bedford, I am in effect representing about 10,000 citizens and a capital investment of $80 million. I am here today to try to acquaint this committee with the very real dangers that are facing our domestic fishing industry at present, and the certain disaster that will befall our industry in the near future unless corrective action is taken by our Federal Government to rectify the ruinous effect that the Trade Agreements Act has had on our American industry. Previous administrations have ignored our pleas. I fervently pray that Congress will insure that the present administration will realize the necessity of preserving the health of our industries as a safeguard to the national economy. Needless to say, the condition of the national economy is only the sum total of the economic conditions of all of its individual industries. The harmful effects of fish imports to the New Bedford industry is clearly evidenced by the fact that in the last 2 years not one new groundfish dragger has been added to our fleet. Gentlemen, may I add here that when I speak of fish I am speaking of groundfish. In that period of time 5 new scallop draggers have been added, and numerous fishing draggers have been converted to scallop draggers. So far, the industry has not been hurt by scallop imports. Only last year there were 13 filleting plants operating in New Bedford. Today there are 7, and only 3 are working on a full-employment basis. The fishing draggers, particularly the smaller ones, cannot withstand the high cost of operation when the prices of fish are driven down by a flood of cheap imported fish, and filleting plants cannot buy American fish and pay American labor to process the fish when cheap foreign fish processed by low-paid foreign labor is flooding the market. There are those who say that, if we cannot produce a product as cheaply as a foreign country can, then we should cease producing that commodity and turn to some other industry. Gentlemen, what other industry? In Massachusetts we already have a surplus of labor. In New Bedford, the textile industry is tottering. Who will support the 10,000 souls dependent upon the fishing industry? What of the taxes heretofore derived from the greater than $3-million-a-year payroll, and what of the corporation taxes? Who will support the unemployed? Those questions would be tossed aside by the idealistic economists simply with the statement that "adjustments will have to be made." One overriding fact faces us that cannot be tossed aside. That fact is that, if our American fishing industry is allowed to vanish, who shall supply the Nation with food from the sea during time of war? In wartime imports are severely curtailed or eliminated. Witness quinine and rubber during World War II. There are no substitutes nor synthetics for foodstuffs. We ourselves must have them available. The Government must have them available if it means supporting them in time of peace to have them in time of war. A soldier may go for days without firing a round of ammunition, but he cannot go without eating for more than a day. Our Government must make up its mind what policy it is going to follow. On the one hand it wants to promote maximum employment and a high standard of living for our citizens. On the other hand, it wants to promote free world trade with no import restrictions. Gentlemen, the one is the antithesis of the other. We of the fishing industry seek only a realistic synthesis of the conflicting economic philosophies. We believe that the health of the American economy is of primary interest to the citizens of this country, and that foreign economies are secondary. America does not produce enough fish to meet the national consumption. The difference is about 35 percent. Imports of fish up to 35 percent of the national consumption would not be injurious to our domestic fishing industry. Imports of over that percentage means that segments of our industry are being eliminated. Imports of fish up to 35 percent of the consumption, we welcome. All above that we want stopped. Before you is H. R. 4294, the Simpson trade-agreements bill. That bill is the only realistic approach to the entire trade-agreements prob lem. In that bill is the protection of American industries against ruination by a flood of imported goods produced in foreign countries by cheap, low-living-standard labor. I urge you, as Americans and statesmen, to act favorably, and as quickly as possible, on this bill that is before you now. Thank you for your courtesy. Mr. JENKINS. We thank you very much for your fine statement. I should like to ask you a question or two. I take it from your statement that you represent just a small segment of the fishing industry of the Nation, a segment centered mainly around New Bedford, Mass. Mr. LINEHAN. That is right; yes, sir. Mr. JENKINS. And no doubt you can say that the same conditions that prevail there prevail all up and down both coasts in the fishing areas? Mr. LINEHAN. Yes, sir; they do. The ground fish produced on the Atlantic seaboard. And every port is in the same position that we are. There will be representatives from other ports here, not today but later on, I believe. Mr. JENKINS. On page 2 of your statement, you make a reference to imports. Where do these imports of fish come from? Mr. LINEHAN. The imports of fish that affect the ground-fish industry come from Canada, Newfoundland, Iceland, Norway, Greenland. Mr. JENKINS. They come from up and down the Atlantic coastline. They will come from the same ocean that you fish in, and it will be the same kind of fish that you deal in? Mr. LINEHAN. Yes, sir. They don't come from exactly the same area. The foreign fleet fishes closer to their home shores. Mr. JENKINS. Do you know anything about the difference between the wages paid in your domestic industry and what they pay up in these others, northern sections? Mr. LINEHAN. I don't know exactly, although in the American industry the fishermen derive their income from a share of the proceeds of the stock that is sold. In most foreign countries, the government controls their fishing industries, because they are of major importance to those governments, such as Norway and Iceland. Canada, I believe, carries quite a bit of control over her fishing industry, and Newfoundland. And they, I believe, control the amount of fish that is brought in and the amount of fish that is put onto the ediblefood market. When they reach above a certain amount, then I believe they put certain restrictions on it and turn that fish into fish byproducts and meal. Mr. JENKINS. Neither the Federal nor the State government imposes any limitations on you? Mr. LINEHAN. No, sir; they don't. Mr. JENKINS. That is all. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. LINEHAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. JENKINS. The next witness is Mr. Lamonte Graw. Is Mr. Graw here and ready to testify? (No response.) Mr. JENKINS. Very well. We will next hear from Mr. Edward F. Vonderahe. Give the clerk your full name and the capacity in which you appear. STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. VONDERAHE, CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN TRADE COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY A. MOSS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN KNIT HANDWEAR ASSOCIATION, INC., GLOVERSVILLE, N. Y. Mr. VONDERAHE. My name is Edward F. Vonderahe. I am manager of the Glove Division of the Gloversville Knitting Co., Gloversville, N. Y. I appear before you on behalf of the American Knit Handwear Association, Inc., in the capacity of chairman of its foreign-trade committee. This committee is charged with studying and recommending association policy in matters relating to foreign trade, particularly with regard to the tariff. We welcome this opportunity to make the following statement for the American knitted glove and mitten industry. The American Knit Handwear Association represents the American manufacturers of circular knitted, seamless gloves and mittens. A list of the names of the companies and the location of their factories is appended hereto in appendix A. This list shows that many of our plants are situated in smaller communities and logically form the economic foundation of their community welfare. The total number of production workers employed in 1952 averaged 4,016 throughout the year. All but one manufacturer qualifies as small business under the norm of the Small Defense Plants Administration. Our gloves and mittens are knit directly from yarn. Our biggest production is from woolen worsted yarn for fall and winter wear. Our secondary production is from nylon and cotton-string yarn for spring and summer wear. Six manufacturers also make slipper socks tubes for the hosiery industry. We have no other product. We are not a small integral part of a larger industry. We have no export market. Our existence, therefore, depends primarily upon the manufacture of our chief product, wool gloves and mittens for the domestic market. In order to understand our interest in this bill, it may be well to first examine briefly the position of our industry when competing in the civilian market with imported knit wool gloves; and, secondly, to recount our experiences in manufacturing for the armed services, specially since Korea. It will explain why we favor the proposed legislation. Our relative position in the market has steadily worsened since the first postwar shipments of wool gloves were landed here from Japan in 1948. Since 1945, it has been predicted repeatedly by this industry in testimony at hearings before the Committee for Reciprocity Information, this committee, and the Senate Finance Committee that our present postwar experience would be a repetition of our prewar experience, which justified a Presidential proclamation in 1936, setting the American selling price as the basis for duty on one category of wool gloves and mittens. Appendix B, attached, shows the parallel. In the 5 prewar years, 1932 through 1936, imports climbed from 43,000 to 616,000 dozen |