with you the concern for the whole country's problem. So I would just suggest that again, representing the Governor of New Jersey and the State administration and personally representing the agency charged ultimately with administering these allowances and administering the complicated business of trying to train and retrain workers for new careers when they may be cut off, a few of them in their prime, from what they are presently doing, we feel strongly that the difficulties here are far outweighed by the real necessity of meeting the problems which H.R. 9900 addresses itself to.

Mr. KING. Does that complete your statement?
Mr. MALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Male.

(The prepared statement referred to follows:)

EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND F. MALE, NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, REPRESENTING GOV. RICHARD J. HUGHES OF NEW JERSEY

Gov. Richard J. Hughes of New Jersey has asked me to come here today to express his strong support of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (H.R. 9900). In a recent speech to the Foreign Commerce Club in New York, Governor Hughes said, "I believe passage of this measure is vital-vital to the Free World, to the United States, to the Port of New York, and to my own State of New Jersey."

This important committee of the Congress has already had much testimony on the national and international effects of the proposed legislation. Governor Hughes has asked me to explain briefly some reasons why we in New Jersey find some additional compelling reasons close to home for supporting the bill. New Jersey's major exporting industries are chemical and allied products, transportation equipment, primary metals, machinery, petroleum and coal products, special instruments, and food products. New Jersey in 1960 ranked seventh in the Nation in value of manufactured exports. Export of manufactured products in 1960 totaled $897 million. Nearly 40 percent of our workers in manufacturing jobs are employed in plants with major exporting interest.

New Jersey is a foreign trade State. The people of New Jersey depend on trade for the goods they use and the income they spend, in short, for much of their prosperity.

We in New Jersey do not fear competition. The Governor reminds us that "The people of New Jersey have not forgotten how to produce and compete." Expanded foreign trade is both a challenge and an opportunity for New Jersey's competitive commerce and industry. The traffic in goods which we find so vital is linked with an intangible but equally real traffic in ideas. Knowledge is the truly critical commodity in a research-based economy like New Jersey's. The free flow of ideas is essential to democratic life and similarly the free flow of goods is essential to democratic enterprise.

Our Governor, however, shares the concern of many thoughtful citizens for the possible ill effects of the new market relationships on a few specific industries and specific jobs. We are particularly anxious, therefore, to urge the adoption of the Trade Readjustment Allowances and related proposals in the bill under consideration. A few workers and their families, a few industries, a few communities may be adversely affected by a program which, in the main, will greatly benefit the rest of us. It is imperative, therefore, that we make a major effort to soften the impact, to smooth the transition for workers to new jobs. New Jersey is not without some experience in this already in view of the similar impact of automation, technological change, and business migration within and between States. The Trade Readjustment Allowances when viewed in relation to the Manpower Development and Training Act which the Congress recently enacted, will give us powerful and necessary weapons in combating individual hardship.

The overall program, of course, in the Governor's judgment and in view of most thoughtful New Jerseyans needs no justification on local or regional views alone. The compelling reasons are national and international. We support the proposals not just as citizens of a dynamic, growing State of New Jersey but in our capacity as citizens of the United States and of the free world.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

The next witness will be Mr. James P. Cassidy, for the Textile Aniline Co. Would you please identify yourself for the record?

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. CASSIDY, COUNSEL, TEXTILE

ANILINE CO.

My name is James P. Cassidy of Lowell, Mass. I am a lawyer and appear before this distinguished committee as attorney for the Textile Aniline Co. of Lawrence, Mass.

I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the other members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in opposition to H.R. 9900. I realize that there is a great divergence of opinion concerning the President's trade proposal, but my study of the bill has persuaded me that enactment of the legislation will have many undesirable effects. It has been contended that if H.R. 9900 becomes law, new jobs will be created, but I am convinced that it will not mean new jobs in the United States-it will mean new

JOBS ACROSS THE SEA

This bill would export American jobs. The fundamental difficulty in this whole matter is that wages in the United States are five times higher than they are in Europe and six times higher than they are in Japan. With such a differential in wages, American industry is helpless to compete in a very large number of industries because Europe can produce the goods at 30 or 40 percent of the cost of production here. Thus they can undersell American-made products and shut our factories down. Because of the high wage scale in the United States we are behind completely in production that requires any substantial amount of labor such as dyestuffs and chemicals, electronics, textiles, radios, photographic equipment, shoes, clothing, rugs, automobiles, household appliances, and so forth, so that persons working in these industries will gradually find themselves out of employment and their jobs will go to Europeans.

And the jobs will stay in Europe until labor costs in this country are cut down to a level equal to labor costs in Europe. Either our labor costs must be lowered to theirs or their labor costs must be raised to ours. What that means is that our high standard of living must be lowered 50 percent and the low European standard of living must be raised 100 percent. This is the compelling result of H.R. 9900. If this is the result the administration wants to accomplish, then why doesn't the administration give the people of this country the cold, hard facts just as they are?

The working people are the ones who will suffer. Big industry is already set up and doing business in Europe. The Ford Motor Co. has $509 million in assets in the United States and Canada and $655 million in assets in Great Britain. In the whole world it has $1,599 million and less than one-third of that amount is in this country. In 1961 Ford sold 2 million American-made cars and 3 million cars made in foreign countries. There is no question that the big American industries have huge investments in factories in foreign countries. Countless smaller U.S. industries have set up plants overseas behind

European tariff walls. More than 1,000 such plants have been established in the last 3 years. Of course, such a migration of industry has added to this Nation's dangerous outflow of gold. And with the gold the jobs go, too.

TAXES

Here again there is an unbelievable advantage for foreign manufacturers. Ford Motor Co. was mentioned above. You would think that a company having more than two-thirds of its assets outside the United States and manufacturing three-fifths of its automobiles in foreign countries would pay at least half its taxes outside the United States. But it is not so; Ford's taxes in the United States in 1961 were $878 million. Ford's taxes in foreign countries in 1961 were $51 million.

Perhaps we have already taxed ourselves out of business.

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS

The Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8, provides that Congress shall have the power to fix tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. This bill H.R. 9900 would force Congress to abdicate its constitutional authority. The bill says that the President shall take over this authority, but, of course, the President cannot do this work himself. He would establish another bureaucratic department which would exercise the tremendous power and authority created under this act, and the act provides that the head of the agency may delegate this authority to others, and they in turn may subsequently redelegate their authority to any of their subordinates, so that this constitutional power may wind up in the hands of some clerk.

When the framers of the Constitution gave this power to Congress they knew what they were doing. They knew that government was necessary, but they looked with suspicion upon any person or group of persons who claimed that they and only they were the men fit to govern. The framers of the Constitution said, and we believe, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and we must be wary of acts which would take constitutional power away from the Congress and give it to one man or any group of men to whom he may see fit to delegate it.

Section 246(3) very aptly illustrates the little respect that the formulators of this legislation have for the Members of Congress: "For the purpose of this paragraph (c) an existing rate is a rate however established and even though temporarily suspended by an act of Congress or otherwise."

DENIAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

There is a paragraph in this bill which contains a provision that our courts shall be stripped of jurisdiction to review. Under this provision, the President or his delegates or their agents and servants can reduce tariffs, eliminate tariffs, grant or refuse financial assistance, and, under section 404 of the bill, all these determinations "shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to review by any court." That includes the Supreme Court of the United States. So where does the little businessman go if he is refused help?

DANGEROUS POWER OVER INDUSTRY AND LABOR

This bill creates a dictatorship over industry and labor. The bill, section 302, et seq., provides that the owner of an industry may get help after he has gone broke and if it pleases the bureaucracy to give him assistance, and this is a matter of bureaucratic discretion. The assistance is given only on condition that bureaucracy send up to the plant a couple of political efficiency experts to run the plant with the right to sell, mortgage, pledge, or otherwise dispose of the assets of the company. This is the ultimate in absurdity. The idea that someone sent out from Washington can wave a magic wand and solve all the problems of a complex industry where intelligent individuals, intimately concerned with the problems of the business for a whole lifetime, have failed, is utterly fantastic.

Of course, they can do what section 315 provides-liquidate the business and sell its assets.

Now, the act also purports to give assistance to workers who are put out of employment by this legislation. They shall be paid $75 per week less social security and unemployment security payments, provided they subject themselves to retraining for other employment opportunities, and after they have been retrained the Goveernment will pay the necessary transportation and subsistence expenses to relocate the workers in another area. What will be done with the Americans who are uprooted from their homes and taken from their relatives and friends? Who will say where they shall be relocated?

If you think that the people who formulated this legislation and seek power under it do not intend to exercise it, consider what Secretary of State Rusk said to the textile manufacturers in North Carolina. He told them if they couldn't compete with foreign textile imports under liberalized tariffs, they better get into some other business. Mind you that this was said before the legislation even came up for hearings. There is implicit in Mr. Rusk's statement, a directive to working people that if they lose their jobs under this legislation, then they can go out and find themselves something to do elsewhere.

How much does America have to give? The vast storehouse of American gold has been dangerously depleted by gifts to the Common Market countries. Now this legislation provides that we shall turn over to them the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I earnestly entreat you to examine this bill in the light of the damage that it will do to American industry and to the laboring people of the United States who have no idea of the meaning and effect of this legislation and what it will do to their jobs.

To demonstrate the particular effect that a reduction in tariff on the domestic dyestuff industry would have, I would like to include in my testimony a copy of a letter which Mr. Roland E. Derby, president of the Textile Aniline & Chemical Co., wrote to Congressman Brad Morse of Massachusetts.

Again, Mr. Chairman, my sincere thanks for giving me this opportunity.

(The abovementioned letter is as follows:)

they alone, must pay the price necessary for the economic betterment of all.

May I respectfully suggest, accordingly, that it is appropriate for our Government to accept the obligation for their readjustment with as little hardship to them as is reasonably possible.

For these reasons, it is respect fully submitted that the readjustment assistance provided for workers under the trade bill is essential in that it would be inequitable both to the States and to the workers who may be affected were this factor not to be contained in the legislation.

May I respectfully request, accordingly, favorable action by this

committee.

Thank you.

Mr. KING. The committee appreciates your bringing your views to it, Mr. Perluss. I think from a great State such as California your remarks are quite pertinent.

Are there questions?

Thank you again, Mr. Perluss. For the record, I hope we have not detained you beyond plane time.

Mr. PERLUSS. I am going to have plenty of time, thank you, sir. Mr. KING. Very good.

Now, Mr. Bassett.

STATEMENT OF CLEMENT R. BASSETT, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. BASSETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a prepared statement which I would like to be made part of the record. Mr. KING. Without objection.

Mr. BASSETT. The hour is late. I will not read this five-page statement. However, I would like to direct my remarks briefly to two points within the statement.

Mr. KING. Proceed as you wish.

Mr. BASSETT. First, my statement relates to the provisions of House bill 9900, which relates to assistance to workers, that is, my statement does not relate to the whole of the bill.

The first point I would like to direct the committee's attention to, if I may, would be the training provision of the bill which goes along with counseling, testing, and placement services of the Employment Security Department.

Incidentally, my name is Clement R. Bassett, director, West Virginia Department of Employment Security.

In West Virginia we have had extensive experience with retraining of displaced workers chronically unemployed.

This is a State experience which has been going on now for over 2 years in addition to our experience under the Area Redevelopment Act. On the basis of our experience, and this is not conjecture, these programs are extremely beneficial and of great value in placing workers in jobs, upgrading them in their skills and placing them in jobs in industry other than the industry from which they were displaced. The second point that I would like to speak to is why should unemployed workers receive this additional benefit over and above the State unemployment compensation?