Mr. SULLIVAN. They opposed it in the steering committee and abstained from voting on it either way in the plenary session in the last day.

Senator PASTORE. What did Japan do?

Mr. SULLIVAN. In the steering committee, Japan, England, and United States opposed. Japan also opposed in the plenary session. I might say in connection with this, this was originally a resolution brought forth by the workers group and then worked over and considered by the employers group. And this draft at one point was unanimously agreed to by the workers and the employers.

Senator PASTORE. What did Great Britain do?

Mr. SULLIVAN. They opposed. Italy, France, and most of the EEC countries voted for it.

When the Governments got in, there was a good deal of effort to try to kill the resolution, and a rollcall vote was called for and the vote was postponed overnight and a great deal of effort was put into defeating it.

Senator PASTORE. Were you there, Mr. Sullivan?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I was.

Senator PASTORE. What arguments did the U.S. Government make in its opposition?

Mr. SULLIVAN. They did not make any arguments. They just opposed it.

Senator PASTORE. This is precisely what the President is trying to do under his May 2, 1961, proclamation.

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is what we thought.

Senator PASTORE. It might be very interesting to pursue this. It certainly is amazing to me.

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are attached to the statement, in addition to the two tables already referred to, two other tables that should be included.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, they will be inserted in the record.

(Documents follow :)

U.S. general imports of wool manufactures by selected broad groups, calendar 1961 and calendar 1962

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, extract of Bureau of the Census Report T.Q. 2201.

U.S. general imports of wool manufactures by selected broad groups, January-March 1962 and 1963

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, extract of Bureau of the Census Report T.Q. 2201.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, and now please introduce your colleagues.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Fulton Rindge, Jr.

Mr. RINDGE. My name is Fulton Rindge, Jr. I am chairman of the Wool Manufacturers Council of the Northern Textile Association. I am also chief executive officer of 3 woolen textile plants in Ware, Mass., and 1 plant in Rochester, N.H., with total employees in excess of 1,000 people.

During the period from early December through late January, two of these plants were closed. The decision to reopen the plants was based in part by a promise made by the President in late January to you, Senator Pastore, and five other Senators, that something would be done to minimize the disruptive effects that imported fabrics have caused in the woolen and worsted marketplace. As of this time, I can see that nothing has been done by our Government to fulfill this promise. I, therefore, question our decision in having reopened these plants. As the statistics presented to you indicate, imports are consuming a large and larger share of our market. They have not only cost us many customers, but generally have tended to depress prices on the fabrics we are currently selling.

I have in my possession cloth from Italy which would be impossible for us to make and label properly for anywhere near the landed price for this product in the New York market. This is just one of many examples of the cheap imported fabrics that are flooding the New York market.

I hope you can bring about action on the President's program promptly and before it is too late for me, my employees, and the industry in general.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rindge. Mr. Stanton?

Senator COTTON. Pardon me for being late. I was detained. We recognize the importance of these hearings. We recognize the im

portance of bringing out all of the facts about the plight of the industry, and I think this reinforces the efforts of those who are making sure the President's advisors and negotiators are fully aware of the situation. I once more am going to ask if you have suggestions about what, if anything, Congress can do legislatively on this matter?

Mr. RINDGE. I believe while you were out of the room, Senator, Mr. Sullivan covered that briefly and I will turn it back to him. Mr. SULLIVAN. My answer, Senator Cotton, is this: We don't need legislation, we have legislation on the books that can do this job.

The first is section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, which was used in the cotton arrangements and could be used in the wool certainly.

The second, which I think may be necessary in this case, is section 8 of the Trade Expansion Act, which is identical in words with the same section or similar section in the prior Trade Agreements Act, and that is the national security provision.

Now that was designed to handle an overall industry situation. It was because of this understanding of that and encouragement of that that the textile and apparel industries put in a case in May of 1961; that a favorable finding on that is within the control of the administration and when they have a favorable finding the President then has all of the power and authority he needs to adjust imports in such amounts and for such times as he deems expedient or as he deems wise. Now he can do that if necessary by acting unilaterally, or he can do it after consultation with foreign governments and an agreement with them. But the point is, if he has that authority and he has the willingness and determination to move ahead, he has a much better chance of getting an agreement or working out an accommodation with these exporting countries.

So I say that I see no reason for additional legislation at this time. I say let's use the legislation that we now have under this act which is identical with the legislation that existed under prior acts. Senator CorTON. Thank you.

Senator PASTORE. All right, Mr. Stanton.

Mr. STANTON. My name is Seabury Stanton. I am chairman of the executive committee of the Northern Textile Association and president of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., of New Bedford, Mass., which operates four plants in Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the manufacture of cotton and synthetic fabrics. I am a member of the ManagementLabor Textile Advisory Committee, established by the President, and have attended conferences held in Geneva and Tokyo in connection with the implementation of point 6 of the President's program. Berkshire Hathaway is now operating 38,000 looms of which 45 to 50 percent are on manmade fabrics. For that reason I would like to bring to the attention of this committee the crisis developing in manmade fiber textiles.

Imports of manmade fiber manufacturers during the postwar period have entered this country at a sharply increasing rate, rising from 7 million square yards equivalent in 1950 to 170 million square yards equivalent in 1962.

Chart No. 1 shows U.S. imports of manmade fiber textiles and shows the increase very sharply during the period from 1950 to 1962.

Mr. STANTON. From 1958 through 1962, imports have more than tripled. Imports of made-up goods and apparel, as well as fabric, have also entered at an alarming rate.

This surge of imports was inevitable because of the building of modern textile industries in foreign countries after the war, the extremely low wages paid to workers in those countries (table I), and the drastic reduction of U.S. duties on manmade textile imports in the late 1940's.

(Table I follows:)

TABLE I.-Textile industry average hourly earnings in selected foreign countries and United States-1961-62

2 Male spinners and weavers only.

1 Converted from local currency at official exchange rate.

Production workers in establishments employing over 30 people.
Woolen and worsted workers only.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Foreign Labor Conditions, International Comparison
Division.

Mr. STANTON. There is clear evidence, however, that these imports represent a mere trickle compared to what is in store for our industry. Following the pattern set in cottons and woolens, foreign countries are producing manmade fiber textiles far beyond their capacity to consume them and are endeavoring to expand their export markets rapidly for such goods.

Foreign mill consumption of manmade fibers has increased from 2.2 billion pounds in 1950 to 6.5 billion pounds in 1962, an increase of about 200 percent, a rate which is three times that of manmade-fiber mill consumption in the United States in the same period. That is evidenced by chart No. 2, which shows in pounds the increase of foreign consumption of manmade fibers as compared to the U.S. mill consumption.

(Chart No. 2 follows on p. 74.)

Mr. STANTON. A recent press release by the Far East correspondent of the Daily News Record states that:

The Hong Kong textile industry is gradually turning its attention to woolen and manmade fibers as the potential for expansion in cotton goods fades away. A rather wide range of manmade fibers in blends are beginning to be used by garment manufacturers here. Manmade fiber enthusiasts in the industry here predict 20 percent of apparel output here may be in blends by the end of 1964.

That means blends of manmade fibers. These statements must be considered in light of what Hong Kong accomplished in the field of cotton goods in recent years. In 1957 Hong Kong's exports of cotton goods to the United States were relatively negligible. In 1960, she had replaced Japan as the largest exporter of cotton goods to this country. In the wool textile field, an impressive start has been made by that country in repeating this pattern. From 1960 to 1962, her exports of wool goods to this country quadrupled, and she already has