$30,326,000 of which only eight-tenths of 1 percent, or $231,000 represented total exports of American-made handmade glassware. The ruinous competition under the act from imported glassware continues to intensify and to disproportionately outstrip the consumption trend. It is anticipated that when the 1957 value of imported glassware is reported by Census the percentage of the domestic market taken over by foreign concerns will exceed 25 percent. In addition to the lowering of tariffs, the low cost of production made possible by extremly low wages paid foreign glassworkers as compared to domestic glass wages, has caused a disrupting influence on home markets. Approximately two-thirds of the total cost of making handmade glassware is in the wages paid workers. The following comparison includes fringe benefits of both American glassware workers' wages and the wages of foreign workers. In the latter instance fringe wage factors have been accepted for use from the United States Department of Labor. In December of 1956 the average wage of American skilled and unskilled workers was $2.23 per hour. The most recent earnings per hour of foreign glassworkers and, in certain instances related industries, shows Japan pays male and female workers an average of 30 cents; France, in glass, ceramics and construction materials, 54 cents to 71 cents; West Germany, males in the glass industry only, 64 cents; Italy, in the glass industry only, males and females averaged 60 cents; Belgium, male workers in nonmetallic minerals including glass, 56 cents; Sweden in the glass industry only males averaged 92 cents; and in the United Kingdom, in glass, males received 83 cents an hour. Costwise, these wages show a tremendous advantage over the average $2.23 per hour paid by the glassware industry in the Uniited States. Low-wage scales resulting in low-cost foreign glassware, also have been responsible, in the main, for the exclusion of the industry from foreign markets. The wage scales in the United States do not permit the manufacturers to sell their products in competition with foreign glassware in other countries. Even in our own hemisphere American manufacturers cannot compete for a part of the South American markets. Twelve years ago our own company, Senator Kerr and gentlemen, exported into 14 different countries. Today Canada only is open to us. Thus, on a note of conclusion regarding the proposed 25 percent tariff cutting provision over the next 5 years, we submit that our industry not only can stand no tariff cuts of any nature in the future, we say, on the basis of all of these specific jusifications that the industry is already suffering under the extension of the present act. Now we come to our second conviction that the Tariff Commission's recommendations should be final. In 1952 the handmade glassware industry petitioned the Tariff Commission for relief under the escape-clause provision. The President rejected a 3-3 decision for the industry's relief. Our testimony has demonstrated to you how imports are forcing the handmade industry to its knees in the only market left for its products-the home market in the United States. Senator KERR. Just one minute. That action in 1952 was rejected and I would presume on the basis of your testimony that actually if you could only reclaim what you had in 1952 you would then think the millenium had arrived, would you not? Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes. Senator ANDERSON. Are you able to say how many 3-3 decisions they have made down there? Mr. GUSTKEY. I am going to try to summarize cases that came up. Senator ANDERSON. There are more tie ball games in that league than I ever heard of. [Laughter.] Mr. GUSTKEY. Through the only avenue open to secure the relief it so desperately needs, the industry within the next few weeks will again apply to the Tariff Commission for relief in order to save this 350-year-old industry from destruction at the hand of foreign competition. Even with the situation as crucial as it is today, what chance has the industry of securing such relief under the laws of our land even if the Commission is unanimous in its opinion that such relief should be granted. As of June 1, 1958, 30 cases have been sent to the President for approval or rejection. Of these 30 cases, 17, or 57 percent, received Presidential rejection. Of the 17 cases, 6, or 35 percent of them, carried the unanimous decision of the Commissioners for relief, but were rejected. Six other cases, for another 35 percent, carrying a majority opinior for relief were rejected and finally 5 other cases representing 30 percent of the total carried to the President's office, carried a split decision of 3-3 and also were rejected. At many thousands of dollars in expense to both the industry as well as the Government, applications for relief are thoroughly investigated. Thousands of hours of time and effort are put into the analysis of investigation findings and into weighing all the elements for and against the problems of the particular industry. In our opinion it it inconceivable that the President or his staff, within 90 days after receiving a unanimous or majority recommendation from the Commission for an industry's relief, can justify a rejection of the Commission's findings. It takes the Commission 9 months of investigations, analysis, and hearings to arrive at their conclusions. Dismissal of recommendations for relief on the basis of so-called overriding political and/or international considerations are in our opinion meaningless: American industry deserves specific reasonsgood and sufficient reasons related to national emergency for any rejection of the Commission's majority and unanimous recommendations. The proposed extension of the present act clearly indicates that the executive branch proposes to continue its tariff cutting. It is equally clear that industries like the glassware industry cannot, with any degree of certainty depend upon receiving relief under the escape clause although conclusive injury may be found by the Tariff Coin mission. The present extension of the act has placed the industry in the conclusive position that this situation is totally unfair and objectionable. The Constitution of the United States specifically states that authority over the trade and commerce of the country is under the authority of the Congress alone. Therefore, we urgently recommend that this authority be restored to Congress where it rightfully belongs. When the Tariff Commission has investigated industries and found they have been injured or threatened with injury, the Commission's recommendation for relief should be final. The industry is cognizant of the fact that in a period of international uncertainty it may be desirable to provide some means to the President to overrule the Tariff Commission in an emergency. But, under the provisions of the proposed extension of the act the President can reject a unanimous recommendation in favor of an industry's relief, thus making it necessary for that industry to secure a two-thirds vote of the Congress to overrule the President. This is patently impractical and a grossly unfair burden to place upon any industry. However, mindful of the country's welfare, we commend for your most serious consideration that the provision of the act be amended to require the President to proclaim the recommendations of the Tariff Commission unless in 30 days he tells Congress he wishes to take a different action and unless Congress, within a further 60 days, by law authorizes him to do so, the President should then be required to proclaim the Commission's recommendations. In conclusion, Senator Kerr and gentlemen, any application of the excessive tariff cutting powers to foreign glassware products sold in the United States will certainly serve to compound the fractures that already have been imposed upon the domestic industry, with the result that even a greater percentage of the domestic market will be handed over to foreign interests the very markets left to the industry upon which workmen and their families must depend for their livelihood. It will be most gratifying to the industry if, by our testimony and our appeal to you, we may have brought forcefully to your attention that there are industries which can be, have been, and are being injured seriously by the Trade Agreements Act as it presently exists and as it is proposed for extension. In fairness we point out that the industry is not averse to competition from imported glassware if the prices at which it is sold in our markets is based on comparable labor rates and the standard of living of glass workers in the United States. Nor are we against trade with foreign countries on the basis of fair reciprocity. However, the facts which we have offered here compel us to appeal to you as our country's representatives to do everything possible to rectify the injustices inherent in the proposed Trade Agreements Act as proposed for extension. Thank you. (The table referred to is as follows:) Comparison of handmade blown glassware with significant economic trends [Prepared by American Glassware Association] 1U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Industry Division. 2 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Foreign Trade Division. 3 Not available as of June 10, 1958. 4U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Senator KERR. Thank you, Mr. Gustkey. I still want to know what this exhibit A shows as to the relationand since it is your product that may be you will help me to understand it, between domestic production and imports in 1947, say, and each subsequent year since then. If you read it right, in 1951 domestic shipments were down 10 percent but I do not know, the next one shows the increase in imports: is that what it is? Mr. GUSTKEY. That is right. It is up 50.1 percent. Senator ANDERSON. Would it be fair to say between 1950 and 1956 the shipments of domestic handblown glass are down 17 percent? Mr. GUSTKEY. 1954; did you stop there? Senator BENNETT. Yes; he keeps going back to his original figures, Senator Kerr, so it is down 17 percent. Senator ANDERSON. Down 17 percent; and the imports were up 143 percent. Mr. GUSTKEY. That is correct. Senator BENNETT. Unfortunately, the first set of figures are in dozens, the second set of figures in dollars, and the question you asked of the previous witness is still not answered by this witness; and maybe we could ask for it. Senator KERR. Why didn't you make both tabulations in terms of dozens? Mr. GUSTKEY. It is practically impossible to get dozen figures on the import product. Senator BENNETT. Can you get dollar figures on the American product? Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes, sir; we can. Senator KERR. Well, that would not be accurate. Senator BENNETT. No; it would not be Mr. GUSTKEY. The only accurate comparison we could hope to get would be the number of items. Senator KERR. That is right. Mr. GUSTKEY. That is right. Senator KERR. You do not have any way-somebody is trying to raise his hand back there; do you know him? You would not have any way to get us a figure that you would be able to assure us is reasonably accurate. Mr. GUSTKEY. I know of no source. You do, Mr. Benson. We will make an attempt, Senator Kerr, if you would like for us to do so. Senator KERR. Well, I would think your interests would be served if you could give us information that would be more illuminating. Now, for instance, it is of considerable interest to know that imports are up 144 percent from 1950 to 1956. You do not have the figures for 1957, I take it, but they are up further; and domestic production is down from 1950 to 1957 by 25/10 percent. We know that the imports have supplied the rest of the market. Do you know whether the overall consumption is greater in 1957 than it was in 1950? Mr. GUSTKEY. Yes, sir; it is greater. Senator KERR. Would anybody have reliable estimates as to how much greater? Mr. GUSTKEY. At this particular Senator KERR. There is a man just raising his hand. I can't tell- I am R. L. Davis, American Glassware Association. They approximate the same figures that you have here. On a dollar basis comparing imports to domestic shipments for consumption, imports have gone up every year. In 1954 imports were 20.9 percent of shipments for consumption, in 1955 they were 23.3 percent, and in 1956, 25.0 percent. Senator KERR. Can you tell this committee the relation between the overall consumption in this country of both imports and exports of 1957 as related to 1950? Mr. DAVIS. We cannot do that because the import figures at the present time are not available. Senator KERR. I am talking about the total consumption. Mr. DAVIS. The total consumption? Senator KERR. The total quantity marketed. Senator BENNETT. If you will ask for 1956 Senator KERR. Forget imports. Don't you have figures as to the total market consumption of this product, whether it comes from Yugoslavia or Ohio? Mr. DAVIS. Well, we will have those figures but, Senator, when you get consumption figures, that means United States shipments plus the imports that are sold in the United States. Senator KERR. I know that. Mr. DAVIS. So you have to have the import figures in order to tell what the total consumption is. Senator KERR. I would suppose you might be able to get it from reports of sales. |