(The information requested was subsequently supplied in an addendum at the end of Mr. Torbert's testimony.)

Senator BENNETT. So we could see what change in the total has occurred in 10 years.

Mr. TORBERT. All right.

Senator KERR. Thank you very much, Mr. Torbert.

I appreciate your statement.

Mr. TORBERT. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Senator KERR. Any questions?

Senator BENNETT. I would just like to make the comment, Mr. Chairman, that I had the privilege of reading this statement last night, and I think it is one of the most important that has been made thus far in these hearings, because it gathers together in a very statesmanlike manner a lot of problems that have been presented to us piecemeal, and should give us a basis for serious study of the future, and maybe a more fundamental change that we may need to consider rather than to continue to patch up the policy that was set in motion 25 years ago.

I am very happy with this statement, and it has set my mind running down a lot of alleys.

Mr. TORBERT. I appreciate your comment, sir.

Senator KERR. Well, mine, like the Senator from Utah, is presently running-I am not going to say down a lot of alleys, but along some very definite lines. I would say the statement that I have just heard, the part of it I heard, accelerated rather than set it.

Senator BENNETT. I think that is probably accurate in my case but it certainly has accelerated it.

Senator KERR. Thank you, Mr. Torbert.

(The material referred to follows:)

[Addendum to brief of E. L. Torbert presented to Senate Committee on Finance, July 1, 1958]

PRICE AND VOLUME TRENDS RELATING TO COMPETITION IN THE UNITED STATES MARKET FOR HOUSEHOLD TABLEWARE (CERAMIC) BETWEEN FOREIGN AND DoMESTIC PRODUCERS

In response to the committee's request for data indicating, for recent years, changes in the size of our market and the extent to which it has been supplied by domestic and foreign producers in the same period, we submit the accompanying table of information.

In complying with this request, as best we can, we face the familiar problem of being unable to measure the United States household tableware market, as it also includes and may have included plastic and glass wares. Within our knowledge, no statistics have ever been collected that include all food-serving utensils for home use.

In the absence of comprehensive data, we are obliged to interpret available information in the light of long experience in producing and marketing our product.

With respect to the S-year period embraced by the submitted statistics:

The United States household tableware market probably increased in keeping with population growth and the rise in real income in this country. Much of the added demand was apparently satisfied with plastics and glassware domes tically produced and imported.

Some increase in the sales of ceramic tableware for household use is to be noted. The quantity of ceramics in use, however, is thought to be greater than the sales increase indicates, as a more widespread use of dishwashers and improved detergents is prolonging the life of this ware.

The data on ceramics submitted herewith are deficient in two respects. (1) The statistics on lower quality earthenware and lightweight china produced

in this country are not available to us for the years compared and (2) Government import statistics (which do not include heavy quantities of high- and medium-quality ceramics entering the United States duty free) are not continuously analyzed for quality and composition.

However, we are discussing the position of manufacturers of quality ceramic ware in this country, and the decline in production volume here is clearly read. Excluded are plastics and glass-whatever market inroads these two materials may have made.

Within the ceramic field, it is obvious that American manufacturers have not been able to hold their own market against foreign producers.

After making due allowance for quality and composition of imports, the average prices shown for the several countries listed betray the insuperable disadvantage that the equally efficient American manufacturers suffer by reason of their higher wage levels and, therefore, higher labor costs.

The efficiency gap has closed between these competing countries, but the wage levels (22 cents in Japan, 43 cents in Italy, 55 cents in West Germany, 61 cents in the United Kingdom, and $2.08 in the United States) remain-as they have for decades-vastly disparate.

In this 8-year period, foreign ware has been produced at stable and even declining prices. Domestic producers, however, with lower volume and heavier promotion expense induced by these imports plus greatly increased wage costs, have been caught in a price-quality-cost predicament that further aggravates their competitive disadvantage.

Japanese imports in particular-regardless of quality and composition-are priced so low that products of like quality from other sources simply cannot compete. As a result, the Japanese exported 6,147,000 dozen of earthenware and 6,826,000 dozen of chinaware to this country in 1956.

Though it must be obvious that imports of this nature and volume represent displacement and also forestall the development of domestic manufacturing competition, our escape-clause and section 336 applications for relief have been denied, and United States tariffs and other protections have been reduced repeatedly over this period of years.

We consider this to be evidence, per se, that the Trade Agreements Act, as administered, is not being used to protect a long-established industry in the manner intended at the time this legislation has been passed and subsequently amended.

Data on ceramic tableware for household use—Imports and domestic production for United States consumption analyzed (quantities in thousands of dozens)

1 Constant report by 21 members of United States Potters Association, who account for the production of most of the high-quality earthenware tableware made in the United States. In 1956, only 20 potteries reported-1 small operation having been liquidated. By July 1, 1958, 7 other of the original 21 potteries reporting had been liquidated.

Constant report by six members of the American Fine China Guild, who account for the production of most of the high-quality, lightweight chinaware tableware made in the United States.

Derived. Relationship of shipments and value of shipments by guild members to that reported for total industry in 1948 is assumed to be in some ratio as existed for 1950 plus 1951. Industry data drawn from Tariff Commission's escape-clause report dated February 6, 1953.

As reported by U. S. Department of Commerce. Does not include substantial quantities and values of ware brought in duty free-principally over Canadian border. Includes all qualities of production. Source: R. C. Cobourn, Syracuse China Corp., July 1, 1958.

Senator KERR. Mr. Carl Gustkey?

STATEMENT OF CARL W. GUSTKEY, AMERICAN GLASSWARE ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY R. L. DAVIS

Mr. GUSTKEY. Senator Kerr and members of the committee: My name is Carl W. Gustkey. I am president of the Imperial Glass Corp. in Bellaire, Ohio.

I am testifying before this committee today on behalf of my company and the manufacturing members of the American Glassware Association producing handmade, pressed, and blown table, stem, and ornamental glassware, and for cutters and decorators of glassware.

The manufacturing members we represent provide approximately 75 percent of the total dollar value of shipments produced by handmade glassware manufacturers in the United States.

Approximately 5,000 workers are dependent upon the companies in the industry for their bread and butter-many thousands more of their families depend upon their wages.

Reductions in tariffs on imported glassware competing with the domestic manufacturers have driven tariff duties down from as high as 60 percent in 1930 to a low of 15 percent under various extensions of the act.

Handmade plants producing illuminating scientific and laboratory glassware have suffered in like measure under the act. Reductions in tariffs range from 70 percent, under the Tariff Act of 1930, down to 252 percent under the present extension of the act.

These manufacturers make such products as electronic tubes, fire warning lenses, lenses for shipboard running lights and many other engineered glass articles essential to the country in wartime.

In about the past 4 years 8 handmade glassware companies have either gone out of business or their operations have been severely restricted owing principally to import competition.

Within the past 2 months the famous A. H. Heisey Co., of Newark, Ohio, has gone out of business and the Gill Glass & Fixture Co., another handmade glassware plant in business for probably 50 years, ceased operations on June 29 and is being liquidated.

Altogether, within the past few years, 16 companies have been forced out of business and their workers put out of their jobs.

Any application of further reductions in tariff under the act as proposed, in our opinion, will drive the handmade glassware industry inexorably toward oblivion.

In this crucial situation of the industry we are left with no alternative but to oppose the provisions of an act, which, if effectuated, will place the industry in the gravest danger and result in widespread unemployment and hardship in our communities.

The glassworker, unlike workers in other industries, is unprepared to work in other industries in a similar skilled position.

In most (or a very high percentage of) instances his skills were developed through generations of glassworkers in his family.

To accentuate this bit of information I would like to offer the testimony that in my own company, 53 years old, the average age of our skilled workers is 54.

The industry recognizes the United States must honor its commitments and obligations but when our industry, let alone whole segments of industry, composing an important part of our national economy is seriously injured by import competition to the point of business cessation in the only markets left in which to sell its products and, coincidentally, with exports practically eliminated, we submit it is time to reverse such a trend, and we believe now is the time. Senator KERR. I am not going to interrupt you at all.

Mr. GUSTKEY. Go right ahead, sir.

Senator KERR. But Mr. Weeks told us that exports were up.
Senator BENNETT. Exports were 19 billion last year.

Senator KERR. Nineteen billion dollars?

Mr. GUSTKEY. I touch further in detail on the exports of this group

of hand manufacturers further along.

Our figures are quite contrary to that, Senator Kerr.

Senator KERR. All right.

Mr. GUSTKEY. Although we feel a number of changes could be made in the presently proposed act, there are two provisions considered

particularly objectionable which, with the greatest justification, we strongly feel should be rectified.

First, the 25 percent tariff cutting provision over the next 5 years is altogether too great a reduction.

Also, an extension of the act for 5 years is too long a time.

Secondly authority to regulate commerce and trade as provided by the Constitution of the United States, should be returned to Congress. Specifically, the President should not be delegated the authority to reject the recommendations of the Tariff Commission.

The Tariff Commission's recommendations, passed by a majority vote should be final except in a situation of proven danger to the country.

In support of these views we lay before you pertinent information on the condition of the industry. Attached to your copy of this statement is exhibit A giving a comparison of handmade blown glassware with significant economic trends.

The source of information is the Department of Commerce.

In recent years there has been a tremendous economic upswing in the United States as indicated by the fact that the gross national product increased in value from $285 billion in 1950 to $434 billion in 1957-an increase of 52 percent.

During the same period, shipments of handmade blown glassware went down every year from 2,419,000 dozen in 1950 to 1,804,000 dozen in 1957-a drop since 1950 of 25.4 percent.

Senator KERR. In order that I may understand, does that refer only to domestic production?

Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. In other words, during that same period shipments of domestic handmade blown glassware would be right?

Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes, sir.

Import figures from the Bureau of Census are not yet available for 1957. However, it will serve the purpose to use 1956 figures to show the adverse balance of trade in handmade glassware items.

In this year after deducting exports from domestic shipments, United States consumption of handmade glassware made by domestic producers totaled $30,095,000 as compared to imports of like glassware amounting to $7,529,000. Thus imports have increased to 25 percent of the total shipments for United States consumption.

Senator ANDERSON. What does it normally run-what did it run in 1950?

Mr. GUSTKEY. 1950?

Senator ANDERSON. You don't show what it normally is. This might be the normal figure.

Senator KERR. In other words, you show the domestic production in 1950 was 2,419,000 of them, but you do not show what the imports were in 1950, do you, or is that later?

Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator ANDERSON. I did not see it.

Mr. GUSTKEY. Well, on exhibit A, when we get to that, sir, we will cover it if you desire to wait until then.

It is most difficult for the industry to recognize anything reciprocal about the present Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act when faced with the stark reality that in 1956 the value of domestic shipments totaled