In 1958, the indicated consumption of domestic and imported fishing reels combined was 6,935,000 units, but the domestic manufacturers' share of the market declined to 78.5 percent.

Statistics for the years 1954 and 1958 have been cited up to this point since their validity can be vouched for by the U.S. Government. In 1960, U.S. imports of fishing reels amounted to 3,377,457 units, according to the Bureau of the Census. This total represents an increase of 124 percent over 1958, and 760 percent over 1954.

In 1960, the indicated consumption of fishing reels, domestic and imported combined, was 8,177,000 units. The domestic manufacturers' share of that volume was only 58.7 percent. To look at the market from another viewpoint, importers have increased their share of the number of reels sold in the United States from 7.5 percent in 1954 to 41.3 percent in 1960.

In fiscal 1954, sales of State resident and nonresident fishing licenses amounted to 18,580,813. In fiscal 1960, sales of State fishing licenses were 23,322,927. Both totals were reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From 1954 to 1960, the number of State fishing licenses sold increased by 4,742,114 or by 25.5 percent.

Thus domestic manufacturers of one of the most important items of equipment for the country's largest participation sport are confronted by declining volume in an expanding market.

And the trend continues. For the first 6 months of 1961, U.S. imports of fishing reels amounted to 2,260,447 units, according to the Bureau of the Census. Projected to the end of calendar 1961, the import total could conceivably equal or surpass total U.S. production. From the foregoing figures, it is readily apparent that the U.S. fishing reel industry is in a serious situation. In fact, so serious has it become, the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association recently retained an independent economist, Mr. Frederick D. Hunt of Washington, D.C., to make a study of domestic and imported fishing reels to determine whether an escape clause investigation should be requested. In a preliminary report, received earlier this month, Mr. Hunt wrote:

According to the information received from the cooperating manufacturers, it is apparent that overall employment in the reel industry has suffered a great decline in the production of the cheaper reels, especially during the past 3 years. Even the slight gain in employees on the more expensive reels has been confined to the larger producers.

In the 7-year period from 1954 through 1960, there was a 15 percent decline in the number of employees working on all fishing reels. However, when the employees are divided as between those working on reels having a manufacturer's sale price (before taxes) under $2.73 and those above $2.73, there will be noted a 49 percent decrease from the former and only an 8 percent increase for the latter.

Thus, for the domestic fishing reel industry, there is ample evidence that imports have had an adverse effect on American employ

ment.

In oral testimony, the association will produce graphic evidence of how imports have affected the employees of one of the country's largest producers of fly fishing tackle.

I have here a copy of a letter addressed to the Honorable Melvin R. Laird, Member of Congress, whose office is on this floor, I believe. This letter is signed by the employees of the Weber Tackle Co. in

Stevens Point, Wis., and I should like to have the letter inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. DENT. Without objection, the letter will be placed in the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. MELVIN R. LAIRD,

STEVENS POINT, WIS., December 7, 1960.

Member of Congress, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN LAIRD: You can help us in what we believe is a fight for our jobs a small, but to us a vital part of the total fight for survival of American industry and labor. We, the employees of the Weber Tackle Co., of Stevens Point, Wis., have unanimously voted, as an independent employee group, to fight the importation of products which unfairly compete with the products of American labor. Can we count on your help in this fight?

For 65 years we, and previous "Weber" employees, have produced quality fly tackle for the American fisherman. We have taken pride in our work which is highly skilled and artistic. Now our jobs are being taken from us by the Japanese, and our entire industry is threatened. Please examine these employment figures:

These figures demonstrate that each year, total company employment has decreased; in fact, there was a loss of 172 employees from the high of 307 in 1947. Each year fewer skilled flytiers are employed, who at one time numbered in the hundreds in our company.

Why has our number dwindled? The explanation is to be found in the production of a fly. A quality fly requires the best available material but more importantly, the combination of highly skilled labor with those materials. Labor is a great cost of a fly. Some of our flytiers earn as much as $1.52 per hour, not considering fringe benefits such as free life insurance, profit sharing and other benefits. Our Japanese counterparts are paid 10 to 15 cents per hour and receive no fringe benefits. Obviously, our employer cannot sell fly tackle at the price of the Japanese tackle. When the company cannot sell, it cannot produce; no production means a loss of jobs or at best shift in jobs.

Fortunately, the company has diversified and its affiliate, Weber Plastics, Inc. has been able to employ some former Weber Tackle employees. However, in spite of the diversification, the majority of us still depend upon the sale of fly tackle to provide our living.

We feel that quotas are the only sensible solution to this problem. To double or triple the duty will not solve the problem. If the foreign manufacturer pays only one-tenth of what American labor is paid, then allow them to export one-tenth of the product. The import quota should be at the same ratio as the wage-rate comparison.

We are asking that you initiate legislative action along these lines, or that you support such legislation if it has been introduced. Unless immediate steps are taken, we fear American labor and industry will be so weakened that our entire economy will suffer a blow from which it may never recover.

Sincerely yours,

(Signatures in Subcommittee Files)

EMPLOYEES OF WEBER TACKLE CO.

Mr. ZERVAS. That is all I have.

Mr. DENT. I noticed in that letter they refer also to diversification. It seems to me as I go through this that emphasis has been placed upon diversification without considering that diversification might be as great an injury as the stated injury of imports. If in diversifying they mean buying up another production from another facility, and moving it into that area to take up the jobs of those that are lost through imports, are they not creating a condition in the community where they lifted the industry from?

Mr. ZERVES. Not in this particular instance. This happens to be a cooler which they never made before.

Mr. DENT. That no one else ever made?

Mr. ZERVES. This is made out of a plastic rather than the old mineral bucket, so it created new products and possibly if not new jobs, saved some jobs in this particular company.

Mr. DENT. That is the answer that is suggested by the proponents of any restrictive covenants. They say we will be able, and should be able to diversify by creating some new products to take the place of the products that are being removed because of competition.

Mr. ZERVES. This particular company is able to do it, but a reel company finds it difficult to diversify into other lines. They try to come up with new ways of doing things, but it is very difficult.

Mr. DENT. I am very interested in your figures on the reels. Mr. ZERVAS. We are back to the 1954 level on factory shipments. Mr. DENT. That is the serious point of the whole thing. The growth of the country in its employment has not kept up with the growth in population or its share of the growth in the gross national product. We get fooled sometimes by the figures on the gross national product because a great many times there are earnings which are higher that increase the gross national product, but it is not spread over the same number of men who were earning it.

Mr. ZERVAS. That is true. If I may borrow a few more minutes of your time, I would like to point out Japan's reel units imported increased to 148 percent in 1960, we have estimated our own American shipments at 4.8 million. That was developed in the study referred to in my statement. If you regard Japan's units as a percentage of U.S. shipments, they are 55 percent of our own.

Mr. DENT. When did reels start to be a factor?

Mr. ZERVAS. In 1954 they really became a factor. That figure is brought out in my statement.

The 1954 imports were only 393,000 units. I think the reel story is pretty well spelled out here and we are in pretty bad trouble in reels and it accounts for our single greatest source of dollar volume. Mr. DENT. I appreciate very much your coming to these hearings because most of the smaller employers of the country seem to feel that the jig is up, and that there is not much use in appearing before congressional committees, and a great number of them have just decided there is no use in doing it, and we have to overcome that. Mr. ZERVAS. We are basically small business, and we intend to stay in business.

Mr. DENT. The real harm seems to be in these smaller business corporations and producers in this country.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Andrew Arcuri, vice president, International Union of Doll & Toy Workers of the United States and Canada. It is nice to see you again.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW ARCURI, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF DOLL & TOY WORKERS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, AND ASSISTANT MANAGER, TOY & NOVELTY WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 223

Mr. ARCURI. As vice president of the International Union of Doll & Toy Workers of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and as assistant manager of its largest local union affiliate, Toy & Novelty Workers of America, Local 223, I should like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it and to make this statement with respect to the harmful effects of imports, in increasing numbers, of toys, dolls, playthings, and novelties, upon the economic condition of these domestic industries generally, and also from the point of view from which I speak, upon the workers in the doll and toy industries, specifically.

Our union represents and for many decades has represented the largest segment of organized workers in these industries.

During the last 5 years there have been a greater number of bankruptcies, plant relocations and layoffs of workers than at any time before in the history of our union. We attribute this, in large measure, to the effects of imports of toys from low-wage countries and the wide sale and distribution of such toys in our country.

I should like at this point to relate to the committee some incidents in recent contract negotiations between the union and some of the employers in these industries which illustrate this.

Most of the doll manufacturers are concentrated in the eastern part of the United States. Stuffed toy manufacturers are predominantly in the East but tend to spread throughout the United States. The stuffed toy industry does not require the considerable capital for machinery and plant equipment which the doll industry does. However, both industries are essentially marginal in character. Since less capital is required in the stuffed toy industry, we find marginal operators able to open small plants in different parts of the country employing unorganized labor. Despite the competition this presented to the established manufacturers in the stuffed toy industry, this kind of competition has never been as devastating to the economy of the industry as has beeen the importation of toys from Japan, Hong Kong, and West Germany.

In our most recent negotiations with the National Association of Doll Manufacturers and the Stuffed Toy Manufacturers, the two employer associations with which our union bargains collectively with respect to practically all of the employees in the doll and stuffed toy industries, the union was seeking, on behalf of the employees it represents, a 10-cent-across-the-board general increase. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the statistics distributed by the State of New York show that employees in our industry are the second lowest paid employees in our country, the workers in the cigar industry being the lowest paid. One can, therefore, appreciate that a request for a 10-cent increase was not excessive. This is especially

true when viewed against the pattern of wage increases at the time of the negotiations.

The executive secretary of the manufacturers and other members of the employer negotiations team dramatically threw upon the table a finished doll product being sold in this country at the retail price of 69 cents. This 14-inch doll was made in Japan and was practically identical in workmanship, quality, and design to our dolls which sell at retail in the same stores from $1.39 to $1.69.

Our manufacturers are no longer able to tell their retail outlets or their distributors that the quality and design of our dolls are better than the imported dolls. The Japanese doll thrown on the table was imported for less than 39 cents. It is evident, in view of this, that the employers of our union members were in no position to contemplate a 10-cent increase and were hard put to grant a lesser increase. Most of the manufacturers producing items in this price range have had to turn to importing or go out of business. Large departments of various plants have been discontinued and our workers have been

laid off.

I would like to give you another example of what has happened to American industry in the doll field. This country was a very large producer of miniature dolls.

May I digress for just a moment to say that now there is only one major doll manufacturer in this country. Our producers have been wiped out of this market by foreign imports. The same trend is seen in other areas of the industry. In the novelty field, one of our large manufacturers of charms, which are distributed through gumball machines, has found it costs him considerably less at the present time to import these items than to have them produced here.

This situation is not confined to the low-price field. One of our large manufacturers of stuffed toys has been forced to discontinue production of such toys because of the expensive stuffed toys imported from West Germany, while other large manufacturers of stuffed tops have had to discontinue a great many items because of the importation of stuffed toys from West Germany and most recently from Japan. They are now sending over here a shell, which is the most important part, cut and secured; all that remains is the stuffing and finishing which is practically nothing.

Mr. DENT. You mean we are becoming a nation of stuffers?

Mr. ARCURI. In toys, yes, only we are being stuffed by Japan. I have not been able to detect one label on these shells which says "Made in Japan," yet. I have checked through two shops which I discovered importing these shells.

Mr. DENT. The Japanese are certainly modest. While they may be proud of their work they do not show pride in their workmanship. Mr. ARCURI. Their workmanship is just as good as ours today. There is no difference.

The results of the increasing importation of toys and dolls from countries with a low-wage labor force are seen in the high unemployment, idle machinery, loss of large capital outlays by our manufacturers, and bankruptcies in our industry.

Our manufacturers cannot compete with Japan on low-price items: they cannot compete with West Germany on higher priced toys, and it is obvious that they cannot continue to compete successfully in middle-priced toys.