July 28,1964
Page 17120
MEAT IMPORTS -- WILD ANIMALS AND WILD BIRDS
The Senate resumed the consideration the bill (H.R. 1839) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide for the free importation of wild animals and wild birds which are intended for exhibition in the United States.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes on the bill to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, as I indicated last night, I am very much in sympathy with the objective the pending bill seeks to accomplish. I question, however, whether or not the proposed bill is one proper way to do it.
Last night I had occasion to point out the plight of the textile industry. I come from a State in which, when I was Governor, 45 percent of its gross income came from the textile industry. Even with all the attrition that has taken place in the past decade with respect to the textile industry in my State, today it still remains the largest employer. So when we lose a mill in Rhode Island, Rhode Island citizens lose jobs. We are talking about American workers.
In 1958 this entire problem came to the attention of the Congress. From that time, I have been intimately associated with the activity in the House and in the Senate with regard to the imports of textile products.
To give examples, I have in my hand only a partial list of mill closings in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. These closings mean loss of jobs to American workers.
Let me give the following list of Rhode Island mill closings and the number of employees who have lost their jobs:
Crown Worsted Mills, Providence, R.I., 175 employees.
Paragon Worsted Co., Providence, R.I., 350 employees.
Collins & Aikman Corp., Plant J. Bristol. R.I., 200 employees.
Woonsocket Spinning Co., Woonsocket, R.I., 250 employees.
Atlantic Wool Combing Co., Woonsocket, R.I., 150 employees.
Yorkshire Worsted Mills, Woonsocket, R.I., 100 employees.
Bonin Spinning Co., Woonsocket, R.I., 200 employees.
Stillwater Worsted Mills, Mapleville, R.I. 250 employees.
I also have a list of a number of Massachusetts mill closings, and the number of people put out of work. I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MASSACHUSETTS MILL CLOSINGS
Packard Mills, Inc., Webster, Mass., plant; Caryville, Mass., plant; 750 employees, total.
Wyandotte Worsted Co., Pittsfield, Mass.. plant, 500 employees.
Marland plant of the J. P. Stevens Co., Andover, Mass., 450 employees.
Grey Laine Mills, Worcester, Mass., 75 employees (estimate).
Essex Woolen Mills, Essex, mass., 50 employees (estimate).
A. D. Ellis Mills, Monson, Mass., 475 employees.
Bernard Mills, Methuen, Mass., 100 employees (estimate).
Berkshire Woolen Co., Pittsfield, Mass., 500 employees.
Bachmann-Uxbridge Worsted Co., Uxbridge, Mass.; Uxbridge plant, 700 employees; Rivulet plant, 100 employees (estimate).
Beaverbrook Mills, Inc., Dracut, Mass., 275 employees.
East Weymouth Wool Scouring, Weymouth, Mass., 200 employees.
Bell Co., Clinton, Mass., 230 employees.
Oxford Looms, Inc., Oxford, Mass., 150 employees (estimate).
Massachusetts Mohair Plus Co., Lowell, Mass., plant, 300 employees.
Alexander Wool Combing, Lowell, Mass., 75 employees (estimate).
Rockwell Woolen Co., Leominster, Mass., 100 employees.
Franklin Woolen Mills, Franklin, Mass., 160 employees.
Sutton Mills Division, North Andover, Mass., 200 employees.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr President, will the Senator yield to me at that point?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Rhode Island on this vital and serious subject. I know a great deal about the problem he is discussing. I know the serious damage that has been done, not only to mills in his State and Massachusetts, but to mills all over the country where textiles are involved, particularly woolen textiles. One of the largest, I believe, was located in Alabama. It closed last year. It employed more people than any other textile mill in the United States. That plant is completely liquidated. This year, the Chatham Manufacturing Co., in Tennessee, was closed as a result of the flood of textile imports into this country.
The Senator from Rhode Island has rendered distinguished service on this problem since 1958. He has held hearings all over the country. He has appealed to the Senate, the House, and the President, and has made every effort that any human being could make,
I wish to associate myself with his remarks. The problem is serious. It is becoming more serious every day. Something should be done about it. As I stated before the committee, I shall do everything I can to help him in this situation.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I commend him for his remarks, and for the work he has been doing on the problem.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, realizing the plight of the textile industry in the United States, in May 1961, President Kennedy enunciated a 7-point program. One of the important elements of that program was the fact that the President called upon the exporting nations of the world to meet in an international conference in an effort to reach an understanding on a limitation of exports to the United States of textile and manmade fibers.
A conference was held with relation to cotton. A 1-year agreement was consummated in 1961, which expired a year later.
In 1962, that agreement was renewed for a period of 5 years, to run from the first of October 1962, and to expire on the last day of September 1967.
The cotton agreement has worked pretty well. It has not been completely satisfactory to the industry. That is understandable. But it has worked reasonably well-- 18 or 19 countries of the world engaged in cotton manufacturing got together and reached a reasonable agreement that there should be some kind of limitation on export of cotton goods to the United States, and that our market should not become the dumping ground for the cotton production of the entire world, thereby killing off the American cotton industry.
When it came to woolens and worsteds, those countries began to renege a little. We had been trying hard, under the administration of President John F. Kennedy, and we have been trying hard under the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, to do something about this problem. We have not come before the Senate and, tried through a legislative fiat, to institute a quota system, because we do not believe that this is the correct approach.
We still believe that is not the right way to do it. There are many ramifications to this complex problem. It is not in the interest of the United States of America for Congress to say that we should limit imports on a basis not to exceed the figures for the 5-year period from 1959 to 1963.
I do not believe it should be done through a legislative committee, and I do not believe it ought to be done on the floor of the Senate, with respect to one product, because many products are in trouble. The lumber industry is an example, as the Senator from Washington has pointed out. It is in trouble. The woolen and worsted industry is in trouble. The shoe industry is in trouble. The electronic components industry is in trouble. I am not one of those who condemn the administration by saying it is not interested in the welfare of America, or that it is not interested in American industry. I recognize that there are some sensitive sore spots in our economy caused by imports.
I hope that the administration will take the bull by the horns and make some of the exporting countries understand that an agreement must be reached on a multilateral basis. So far, that is not happening.
We have been trying for a long time, in connection with woolens and worsteds, to get Great Britain, Italy, and Japan, not to agree with us, but merely to sit down with us and discuss the problem. They have refused to do so. A short time ago our emissary returned from Great Britain and Italy with a negative answer. They will not even sit down and discuss the problem. If they persist in that attitude, there will be a continuous chain of bills such as we are now discussing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I yield 10 additional minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, we shall be faced with the same situation in other industries and with respect to other commodities that we are now facing in connection with meat imports today.
I repeat that the proposal before the Senate is not the right way to deal with the problem. We cannot possibly envision all the problems of the President. Many political situations must be taken into account. For us this afternoon to say that from now on we will not import meat into this country in excess of the average between 1959 and 1963 would be a disservice to the President of the United States, who must keep this country and the world on an even keel, and who has many sensitive questions to analyze and to solve.
It is absolutely unjust to consider only one commodity merely because, as has been said on the floor of the Senate, it involves the economy of 32 States. What I am discussing, in connection with the woolen and worsted industry, concerns the 50 States. It concerns the American people. It has a great deal to do with the fight against poverty. Where do Senators think the people come from who are out of work? Where do they come from if they do not come from the mills that have closed?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a short comment?
Mr. PASTORE. I am glad to yield for a long comment.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator is discussing textiles and shoes, products manufactured in New England. Those products affect everyone. They involve the clothing and shoes that people wear. We are vitally interested in those products, just as a number of our colleagues in the Senate are interested in meat.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. It is necessary to deal with these problems to the best advantage possible.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes; the point I am making is that I hope the administration will take the bull by the horns and thereby avoid bringing this kind of legislation to the floor of the Senate.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. We have been trying to get the administration to do that.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes; that is the procedure that has been followed in the textile industry.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. That is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. We have always been loath to introduce a bill to stipulate certain quotas by legislative fiat, even with respect to an industry that is so dear to us in our own States. That is why I am saying now that, while I sympathize with the objectives of the bill, I am constrained to vote against it, because this is not the way to do it.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes.
Mr. PASTORE. I shall have to vote against it. My heart will bleed when I do so, but I shall have to do it, because this is not the way to go about solving the problem. What shall I say to the man who is out of a textile job in Rhode Island? Shall I say to him that I voted for meat, but did not vote for textiles? What shall I say to the man who is out of work in a shoe factory? Shall I say to him that I voted for meat, but not for shoes?
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, the discussion here in the Senate today goes far to point up the problems which exist in industries of importance to my State of Massachusetts and the entire New England area, such as the wool textile and footwear industries. I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] that the best way to achieve results with respect to problems of these industries and with respect to meat imports is not by means of the route proposed in this bill.
Relief is requested for the cattle raisers. Certainly it is clear that steps also need to be taken with respect to wool textiles and shoes. Increasing import volumes continue to have adverse effects on these industries. The wool textile industry is one of the principal sources of manufacturing employment in my State. Textile and apparel establishments are located in over 140 Massachusetts cities and towns and employ approximately 100,000 of our people. Massachusetts is the largest producer of wool fabrics in this country and is the largest spinner of wool yarns.
Since January of 1962, at least seven Massachusetts companies have announced the closing of certain of their facilities, largely because of competition from inexpensive imports which today account for approximately 20 percent of domestic consumption.
I have joined other Senators and Congressmen in meeting with the President and administration officials to discuss wool problems and specifically to request that our Government seek an international quota agreement on wool textile products with other wool producing countries. To date we have not been successful in achieving our goal although we continue to hope that the administration will recognize the necessity for action.
Similar problems confront the shoe industry. In January of this year, nearly 35,000 persons were employed in the manufacture of leather footwear. The jobs of these people are jeopardized by the fact that in this industry also, imports are taking an ever larger share of the potential market and now account for nearly 12 percent of domestic consumption. Imported footwear products, which sell for from 15 to 25 percent below U.S. prices, have increased more than tenfold in the past 10 years. Yet no effective measures have been taken to provide relief to this industry.
In my opinion, it is time for the Government to take positive steps, to seek international agreements to provide relief for wool textiles and shoes.
The Senator from Rhode Island has been one of the leaders in New England in trying, through the State Department and through diplomatic channels, to solve the problems affecting wool, textiles, and shoes.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes, but I am not absolving the Department of State of responsibility in connection with the bill now before the Senate. I understand that Australia made some kind of agreement on meat. All I am saying is that this is not the way to attack the problem, because this method will get us into a great deal of trouble. It would tie the hands of the President. We should not do that. I hope the President, and Dean Rusk will read what I am saying here today, because if we do not apply ourselves and do what is absolutely necessary, we shall be in a great deal of trouble. This problem will be repeated.
I say to my colleagues in the Senate that we cannot select one facet of the problem -- meat imports -- and say, "Let us take care of that, and forget everything else." It would be absolutely unfair to do so. My heart goes out to the cattle producers of this country. My heart goes out to the people who are interested in the contribution of this particular industry to the economic welfare of the Nation. I sympathize with them. If there were before the Senate a resolution calling upon the President of the United States to give his attention to the problem and to do something about it, within the responsibility and authority of his office, I would vote for it.
To say arbitrarily this afternoon that we will fix a quota, without knowing all the facts and without knowing the implications that are involved, is not the way to proceed.
I repeat that I am sympathetic with the objectives, but not with the procedures that are advocated here this afternoon.
We have problems. We cannot check the balance of exports against imports without being told what we are selling and buying and what we place in the various categories.
Let us not forget that if we sell $20 billion worth of merchandise abroad and buy only $15 billion worth of merchandise, while the balance is good, the cost in American jobs is 2 to 1 with respect to foreign jobs. Why is that? It is because the foreign industry does not pay the same scale of wages that we pay. In our textile industry the average wage is $1.80 to $2 an hour. The worker in Japan is paid, perhaps, 30 cents an hour; in Italy, 40 cents to 50 cents an hour; and in Great Britain, perhaps 60 or 70 cents an hour.
Actually, the $15 billion in imports represents twice the volume of exports when we measure it in terms of jobs and not in terms of dollars. The trade balance is not good. For every job that we save abroad, two American jobs are lost. This is something that is not understood by the State Department.
I say to those in responsible jobs in the State Department and in the White House that now is the time to do something about these situations. We cannot take an arbitrary position. What we have been trying to do in the textile industry is to get the British and the Italians to sit down and to talk with us.
Only a few years ago Mr. Macmillan made a special trip to confer with President Eisenhower. Mr. Macmillan was very much disturbed about the amount of exports of fine British woolens coming into the United States. At that time there were in effect what were known as the Geneva Reservations.
The Geneva Reservations provided that when the imports of woolens exceeded 5 percent of American production, the tariff would go up from 25-percent ad valorem to 45-percent ad valorem. That was not good for the British, because all the cheap goods would come in from Italy in the beginning of the year, and the good season for the cutting of British wool was in the fall.
So by the time the consumer got around to buying fall woolens, the British had already exceeded 5 percent. The British woolens, therefore, were subject to a 45-percent ad valorem duty instead of 25 percent.
What did they do? They talked about it at Bermuda. They went on television. What did we do?
We removed the Geneva Reservations to help the British. We understood their problem, and did something about it.
Now we are going to them. Only last week we sent a delegation to London. We have problems, but the British will not talk to us. They will not sit down and listen. Now there is an American problem, and the British will not even discuss it with us.
I say to the members of the State Department and to the people of Rhode Island, let us not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. What was good for Macmillan is good for us. All we are asking the British to do is to sit down and talk the situation over. Although this is a simple request, we have not been able to persuade them to do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I commend the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for making this point so eloquently and articulately, as he always does.,
It seems to me that the pending bill concerning the meat problem is important. What we do with it is important, for two reasons, which the Senator has stressed:
First. To demonstrate to countries overseas, which do not understand that we have a problem, that we are concerned about it, and that we intend to do something about it.
Second. To impress upon the State Department and the leaders of our Government in the executive branch that Senators are concerned about these problems and intend to do something about them.
In the middle of May I had the privilege of traveling to Milan, Italy, with representatives of the American shoe industry, for the purpose of discussing with representatives of the Italian shoe industry the problem relating to shoe imports into this country. We spent 2 days talking with those gentlemen. Not until I was able to demonstrate to them by documentation that 33 Senators and 235 Members of the House were concerned about the shoe import problem did the representatives of the Italian shoe industry agree to discuss it.
As of this moment, all they have agreed to do is talk. I have no conviction whatsoever that they intend to permit the talks to lead to results dealing with our problem.
There is a tremendous amount of pressure from the woolen textile industry, the cotton industry, and the shoe industry of this country to do something about the imports problem. I believe that one way to deal with it is through the negotiation of quotas. If we cannot make those people see our point of view, if they will not recognize our problem, we should consider the imposition of quotas.
I know that the Senator from Rhode Island has been in contact with representatives of the wool industry concerning the advisability of offering an amendment to the pending measure to deal with the woolen textile problem. I have been in contact with representatives of the shoe industry for the same purpose. Both groups are sorely tempted to pursue the legislative route this afternoon, for the purpose of adding to the meat import problem the problems of the woolen textile and shoe industries.
I have not yet decided whether I shall pursue those routes, but I wish to emphasize our concern with these problems and our determination to deal with them. If we do not offer an amendment to the pending measure to assist the shoe industry and the wool and textile industry, it will not be because we have abandoned our position, or because we have less concern about those industries than the Senators from the meat-producing States have concerning the meat industry, but rather that we are pursuing other routes that we hope will be productive. However, ultimately it may become necessary for us to follow the legislative route.
I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding.
Mr. PASTORE. I would hope that if we do decide to legislate, we would include all commodities subject to the adverse effects of imports. It is necessary to consider them all as a whole. We cannot fragmentize and select one industry. I hope that will not be necessary.
During the Eisenhower administration, I voted for the Trade Expansion Act. I believe in it. I voted for the Trade Expansion Act under President Kennedy. But here and there we have problems. We have the problem with lumber. We have the problem with woolens and worsteds, with shoes and electronic components. The way to resolve these questions is to sit down and talk them over, and then reach an agreement that is mutually satisfactory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Rhode Island has again expired.
Mr. PASTORE. I request another 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is making a most important point: That is, that all we ask now is that other countries sit down and talk about these problems. But the representatives of the countries with which we are competing in our own country under unfair labor conditions refuse to sit down and talk with us in any meaningful sense. That is the nub of the problem. If they would authorize their representatives to sit down with representatives of our Government and talk in a meaningful way and in good faith, that would help us to deal with the problem.
I emphasize that the problem relates almost wholly to differences in wage scales between the United States and competing countries. When the Treaty of Rome created the Common Market in Europe, one of the conditions not only implicitly but expressly stated in the Treaty of Rome was that the ultimate objective, namely, the elimination of internal tariff barriers in the Common Market countries, would not be achieved until wage conditions among those countries had been stabilized on a fair basis.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes. But there was never unfair competition. That is our problem today.
I wish to emphasize that the domestic wool textile industry has been experiencing a serious decline in the consumption of its products since October 1962.
For the 12 months ending October 1962, the U.S. wool textile industry consumed 374 million pounds of fibers; for the 12 months ending March 1964, consumption had fallen to 327 million pounds, a decline of 47 million pounds or 13 percent lower than the high point. Indications are that this decline will continue although later figures are not yet available.
This 18-month decline has taken place at a time when the U.S. economy has been expanding at an unprecedented rate for the longest sustained period in peacetime.
Wool textile mill employment and operations have reflected the decline after the usual lag. During the past 18 months, 27 mills employing 5,850 workers have closed. In the past 18 months, 5,850 jobs have been lost. These mills and jobs were located in 13 States including five New England States, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The rate of mill closings has increased more rapidly in recent months. Three Massachusetts mills employing 950 workers announced liquidation during the week of May 18.
Since January 1 of this year, eight mills in five States have announced liquidation, and six are in areas of substantial and persistent unemployment.
While the domestic mill consumption has declined by 47 million pounds, imports have dropped only 6 million pounds, and this is largely in semiprocessed manufactures of wool. In other words, during a period when total U.S. consumption of wool products dropped by 53 million pounds, the U.S. mills were forced to absorb 47 million pounds or 89 percent of the total decline, and foreign producers absorbed only 11 percent. It is typical of a declining and depressed market that the low-cost foreign producer is able to maintain a relatively high share. In fact, imports hold a larger share of a declining market than of an expanding one.
In the spring of 1961, when the country was in a general recession, the wool textile industry was also at a low point. U.S. mill consumption for the 12 months ending June 1961, amounted to only 316 million pounds. During the 16-month upswing ending October 1962, total consumption by the United States of wool products increased by 91 million pounds. Of this growth imports absorbed 36 percent, an unusually high ratio in an industry which itself has been plagued by overcapacity. On the downswing which followed, however, the drop in U.S. consumption was 89 percent absorbed by domestic mills, and consumption of imported goods did not dip until January of 1964, 14 months after U.S. mills had felt the pinch and after consumption had dropped by 36 million pounds or 9 percent.
The fact that foreign wool products continued to gain an increasingly large share of the declining U.S. market, is even more startling when it is recognized that in the eight major wool textile consuming countries, the consumption of wool and other fibers on the wool system rose 4 percent in 1963 over 1962. In other words, although the wool textile industries in other nations had growing, alternative markets, they nevertheless maintained throughout 1963 their level of exports to the United States.
An examination of the areas in which U.S. imports for consumption of wool products declined between the 12 months ending in March 1964, compared with the 12 months ending March 1963, shows that most of the decline was in top, yarn, and low-priced fabrics.
In spite of the large drop in U.S. consumption and the dip in imports in several areas, there were increases. Japan increased her exports of high-value fabrics to the United States by 25 percent and of medium-value fabrics by a lesser amount. She also increased her exports of woven apparel by 48 percent. Although Italy lost considerable ground in low-priced fabrics, she increased her exports of yarn and knit goods to the United States by 8.8 million square yards equivalent. The decline in imports of Italian f abrics is attributed to the declining market in the United States, the lack of demand for staple fabrics, and hand-to-mouth buying. Hong Kong also increased her knit goods exports to the United States.
This increasing share of the U.S. market taken by foreign goods can be expressed in a ratio of imports to domestic consumption. This ratio rose from 12.8 percent for the 12 months ending March 1962, to 17.9 percent for the period ending March 1963, and to 19.1 percent for the 12 months ending March 1964. In other words, the imports share of the U.S. market rose by almost 50 percent in this 2-year period-the last 18 months of which have been marked by a continuous decline in U.S. production. These ratios do not include imports via the Virgin Islands which amounted to an evasion of the current tariffs and which have been curtailed by administrative action.
The declining U.S. mill consumption and the trend of imports is graphically shown on the attached chart and tables [not printed in the RECORD]. The significance of the chart is not that imports have dipped during the first quarter of 1964 but that they have declined so little. Imports have been maintained during the decline of U.S. mill consumption which began near the end of 1962. Unfortunately, the U.S. mill consumption decline has probably not ended.
Mr. President, in conclusion, because my time is fast coming to a close, I repeat that it saddens me to take this position but I must vote against this bill today for the reasons I have stated. I feel that this is not the way to proceed. There is a great deal to be said for the position taken by the meat and cattle industry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Rhode Island has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Rhode Island 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. PASTORE. I hope that responsible parties in the executive branch will listen attentively to what is said on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, and will read the RECORD carefully, because this is only the beginning. Unless some executive action is taken immediately, I am afraid of the continued adverse effect of these imports not only on the meat industry, but on the textile industry, the electronic components industry, and many other facets of American industry which have been damaged already by an unreasonable and unconscionable amount of imports. In my judgment the heads of government must negotiate and reach a reasonable understanding as soon as possible.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, as the Senator from the second largest woolproducing State in the Union, I cannot consider the merits of the pending legislation without being mindful of the serious import problems of the domestic textile mills and the woolgrowing industry.
As I have mentioned on this floor on many previous occasions, our domestic wool growing industry -- so vital in Wyoming -- is entirely dependent on the purchase capabilities of our textile mills. When we review the situation of the textile mills, we readily see a rapidly deteriorating situation and a rapidly rising rate of closings.
Imports of foreign wools and wool products are wreaking havoc on our own mills and just as directly on our own woolgrowers. While I will not attempt to amend the bill under consideration to include wool and wool products, I want to state in the strongest possible terms the urgency of this situation and the necessity for timely negotiations with the exporting countries leading to beneficial voluntary agreements.
This is a problem that cannot be ignored nor swept under the rug for the indeterminate future. I reiterate that the economic health of these domestic industries is failing and demands a timely and adequate remedy. I would urge upon those concerned with our trade policies that careful attention be paid to this industry and its problems lest it be necessary to resort to the type
of legislation under consideration today to bring the picture into focus.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, like the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], I have supported the Trade Agreement Acts since becoming a Member of the Senate, although on several occasions I have voted in vain for amendments to those acts which would have required the use of some measure of protection for American industry.
No Member of the Senate -- indeed, no man in public life in America today -- has fought harder than has the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] to protect the right of American investors in the textile, woolen, shoe, and other industries to receive a fair return on their investments; the right of American manufacturers in these fields to retain a fair share of their domestic markets, and the right of American workmen to retain their jobs in these industries.
Ordinarily, I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island in these fields, but I would make a little different application of his reference to the old adage about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
As a result of my pleas to the State Department for some reasonable protection for the textile industry, for the woolen industry, for the shoe industry, for the lumber industry, and for the zipper tape industry, I have come to the conclusion that the geese are no longer laying golden eggs, but that on the contrary, the geese are the ones to whom the State Department has delegated the authority to devise foreign trade policies under the power entrusted to it under the trade acts.
We would have no trouble in our foreign trade if the trade acts were utilized by their administrators to effectuate the concept of Cordell Hull, when he conceived the idea of the United States making reciprocal trade agreements with other nations.
Cordell Hull said time and time again in his public utterances that the only satisfactory trade between nations in the long run is trade which is truly reciprocal, and that trade which is truly reciprocal involves, in substance, the exchange of surpluses.
He said that the United States should make trade agreements with other nations under which we would export to other nations goods which we produce in surplus quantities and under which we would import from other nations goods which we either do not produce or cannot produce effectively.
He also stated on many occasions that when we encourage importation into this country of goods which we are already producing in surplus quantities, the inevitable result is to deny to the American investor a fair return on his investment, to the American manufacturer a fair share of the domestic market, and to the American workingman his job.
I intend to vote for the amendment. I intend to vote for the imposition of beef quotas, because I have prayed long and earnestly to the men in the State Department who exercise the power to
regulate our trade, under existing laws for some reasonable concern for our textile industry, our woolen industry, our shoe industry, our lumber industry, and our zipper-tape industry and in most cases I have so prayed in vain.
The Senate should pass this amendment to establish beef quotas. Unlike most of those in the executive branch of the Federal Government who have been entrusted under the Trade Agreements Act with the regulation of our foreign trade, I believe that the American Government owes a primary obligation to those who live in America, who make their investments in America, and who work in America. I am constrained to say with reluctance that many of the administrators of our foreign trade policies seem determined to assign those who live, invest, and work in America to the lowest place on the economic totem pole.
I intend to vote for the amendment: my reason for so doing is this -- I believe that it is high time for Congress to make it plain to those to whom the power to regulate our foreign trade has been delegated under the Trade Agreements Act that the American Government owes a primary obligation to its own citizens. I believe that the only way we can do that is to pass a bill of this nature. I wish to add one thing more. If the administrators of our foreign trade policies do not change the policies now being applied by them to the woolen industry, the shoe industry, the lumber industry, and the zipper tape industry, we should do as the Senator from Rhode Island suggests, and take some united action in these fields. When all is said, America's first obligation is to those who live, invest and work in America.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to supplement what I have stated earlier on this problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator from Maine request?
Mr. MUSKIE. Two minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the President, the Senator from Rhode Island has very well stated the case for action to relieve the woolen industry from the threat of imports, and the economic impact of imports upon the domestic industry.
At this point, I should like to add to the record as it relates to the shoe industry. Like the Senator from North Carolina, I may very well vote for the so-called meat amendment.
If I do so, it will be for the purpose of expressing my concern that action is needed, under appropriate conditions, to protect domestic industry from foreign goods which compete under unfair conditions.
I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island that, if the legislative road to relief is traveled, the legislation should be broad enough to establish appropriate criteria for relief to all import-sensitive industries which can make a case under such criteria. The legislation before us is not such legislation; and it is an impossible task to write such general legislation on the Senate floor.
At the same time, the pending legislation is based on a concept which could be the basis for such general legislation and which gives us an opportunity to endorse that concept. If enacted, it would also establish a useful precedent.
Turning to the shoe problem, I would now like to fill out the record on its current status.
To make the record complete with reference to the Milan meeting to which I earlier referred, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a copy of a letter which I sent to Senators from shoe-producing States reporting upon the discussions in Milan.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
June 3, 1964.
Hon.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear -:
Last summer, under date of July 25, 1963, you joined with me and 31 of our colleagues in requesting President Kennedy that he consider entering into negotiations with principal foreign supplying nations to establish quantitative limitations on shoe imports. As part of a program pointing toward that objective, we asked for his approval of industry-to-industry meetings between U.S. shoe manufacturers and those of the principal foreign supplying nations, especially Italy and Japan, for the purpose of discussing the problems of world trade in footwear. President Kennedy gave his approval to such meetings.
A similar request was submitted to President Johnson under date of April 24, 1964. He also gave his approval and, subsequently, Under Secretary George Ball agreed to arrange for the meetings.
The first such meeting was held in Milan, Italy, on May 19-20, 1964. The American delegation included the following: President Harold Toor, National Shoe Manufacturers Association; Roy St. Jean, chairman of the foreign trade committee of the shoe manufacturing industry; Thomas F.. Shannon, Esq., counsel to the committee and the association; Iver M. Olson, economist for the National Shoe Manufacturers Association; Bernard S. Shapiro, president of the New England Shoe & Leather Association; Alan H. Goldstein, director of the New England Shoe & Leather Association; Maxwell Field, executive vice president of the New England Shoe & Leather Association; George Fecteau, president, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO; John Mara, president, Boot & Shoe Workers Union. At the invitation of the industry representatives, I accompanied the delegation as an observer for the purpose of expressing the point of view of those Members of the Congress who have joined in appeals to the President for action in connection with the shoe import problem.
The leader of the Italian group was President Carlo Forzinetti, of Italy's National Footwear Manufacturers Association. I should point out that the Italian shoe manufacturing industry is pretty well fragmented in many small factories, including a sizable "cottage" industry. The figures we were given on the number of companies ranged from 2,000 to 5,000.
The meetings were attended by three representatives of the American Consulate in Milan as observers.
The purpose of the meetings was, as stated to the President, "to discuss the problems of world trade in footwear." The American delegation was very careful to point out that, under our antitrust laws, it was not possible to negotiate an industry-to-industry agreement limiting Italian shoe exports to the United States; and such was not the objective of the American delegation.
The American delegation undertook to make the following points: (1) that the rate of growth of shoe imports in the American market had made a serious detrimental impact upon the American shoe manufacturing industry; (2) that the wide gap in wage levels as between the Italian shoe industry and the American shoe industry was the principal cause of this development; (3) that the problem is of very grave concern, not only to the shoe industry and labor unions, but also to 33 Members of the Senate and 235 Members of the House of Representatives; (4) that a solution to the problem must be found if increasingly serious injury to the American industry is to be avoided; (5) that it was our purpose to acquaint them with the seriousness of the problem and of our concern that an effective solution be found; (6) that the orderly marketing approach seemed to us to be the sensible one; and (7) that it was our hope that the Italians might find it in the interest of the shoe industries of both countries to urge negotiations of an orderly marketing agreement on the governmental level.
We pointed out that representatives of the wool industry in the principal wool-exporting countries, including Italy, in March of this year, had recognized "the need for the orderly development of world trade" in the products of the wool industries of all countries and the "need for an early agreement among governments covering world trade in the products of the industries involved." We urged that representatives of the Italian shoe industry give consideration to a similar understanding among the shoe-exporting countries.
Our objective at Milan was twofold: (1) To impress upon the Italians the seriousness with which the industry, the labor unions, and a large segment of the Congress view the problem; and (2) to get their agreement to participate in a consideration of the problem. Both of these limited objectives were, I think, achieved.. In connection with the second objective, it was agreed that the American delegation would submit a position paper to Mr. Forzinetti not later than June 6 of this year. Mr. Forzinetti agreed that they would respond with a position paper not later that July 1 of this year. It was also agreed that this exchange would point toward another meeting to be held in September of this year.
Since our return, I have received reliable and interesting information on the reaction of one of the principal Italian shoe exporters to the meetings in Milan. He made the following points: (1) that a quota in the United States might be good protection for Italian shoe manufacturers and workers; (2) that the American delegation seemed determined to do something about the problem; (3) that the Italian Government itself has taken the protectionist line on imports of other products into Italy; (4) that no government can allow a major industry to go out of business; (5) that cheap Japanese shoe exports into the American market could well threaten the Italian share of the American market.
In brief, it is my impression that the Milan meetings resulted in some progress toward our ultimate objective. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to you for having made the Milan meetings possible.
Sincerely, EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a study by the foreign trade committee for the shoe manufacturing industry, on the impact of Italian shoe imports.
There being no objection, the study was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE IMPACT OF ITALIAN IMPORTS
(A study by the foreign trade committee for the shoe manufacturing industry, representing the National Shoe Manufacturers Association, New England Shoe & Leather Association, St. Louis Shoe Manufacturers Association).
THE SHOE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IS IMPORTANT TO THE U.S. ECONOMY
There are over 1,300 factories located in over 600 communities -- the vast majority of which are small towns -- where shoe manufacturing is the major source of income. There are located in 38 States in over 260 congressional districts.
The industry employs over 200,000 shoe workers according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The payroll is nearly a billion dollars a year. An additional 70,000 or more are employed in allied industries producing machines, materials, components, and supplies for shoe manufacturers. This results in shoe sales of $4,700 million annually.
THE SHOE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF SMALL MANUFACTURERS
The shoe manufacturing industry is highly competitive, thus forcing prices to a minimum. Average employment per plant is 180 -- 200 workers. Their take-home pay is very small. The firms are very progressive in their improvement of plant processes and products, and efficiency is greater in American shoe plants than anywhere else in the world.
Industry profits are relatively low, averaging from 1.1 to 2.5 percent after taxes. One-third of our manufacturers sustain losses each year. The percentage of net profit to sales has declined in recent years.
SHOE IMPORTS FROM ITALY HAVE INCREASED AT AN ALARMING RATE
From 1960 to 1963, over 130 percent.
From 8.2 million pairs in 1960 to nearly 19 million pairs in 1963.
Based on current trends, imports from Italy are expected to total 21.5 million pairs in 1964, and in 1967, 32 million pairs.
(A chart on imports from Italy in millions of pairs is not included in the RECORD.)
LEATHER FOOTWEAR IMPORTS ARE DUE TO LOWER ITALIAN WAGES
According to the latest information available from the U.S. Department of Labor, the average wage per hour (including social benefits) in the Italian shoe manufacturing industry was 55 cents per hour in 1960; 64 cents per hour in 1962; and 73 cents per hour in 1963.
In contrast, U.S. shoe manufacturing wages (including social benefits) were $1.80 in 1960; $1.97 in 1962; $2.07 in 1963; and $2.11 in 1964.
'The U.S. Department of Labor obtained its data from Rassegna di Statistiche del Lavoro, Confederazione Generale della Industria Italians, Rome; Salaires C.E.E., Statistiques Sociales series, 1963-No. 1. Office Statistique des Communautes Europeennes.
NINETEEN MILLION PAIRS IMPORTED ELIMINATED 7,600 JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN 1963
Based on latest productivity rates, imports from Italy eliminated 7,600 job opportunities in the U.S. shoe industry in 1963.
It is estimated that an additional 1,000 jobs will be lost in 1964, due to imports from Italy.
(A chart showing Italian imports eliminated 7,600 job opportunities in U.S. shoe manufacturing is not included in the RECORD.)
THE BULK OF FOOTWEAR IMPORTS FROM ITALY ARE WOMEN'S AND MISSES' SHOES
Imports of these types increased 205 percent from 1960 to 1963.
From 4.8 million pairs in 1960 to 14.5 million pairs in 1963.
They were 1.5 percent of a U.S. production of 320 million pairs in 1960.
They were 4.6 percent of a U.S. production of 315 million pairs in 1963.
They were 6.4 percent of a U.S. production of 86 million pairs in the first 3 months of 1964.
Based on current reports, imports of these types are expected to reach 22 million pairs in 1965, or 7.1 percent of an estimated U.S. output of 308 million pairs.
(A chart showing U.S. imports of women's and misses' shoes from Italy is not included in the RECORD.)
U.S. MANUFACTURERS OF WOMEN'S AND MISSES' LEATHER SHOES HAVE LOST THEIR GROWTH TO ITALIAN IMPORTS
The rate of growth in this segment of the industry from 1950 to 1960 was 2 percent per year. At this rate women's and misses' production should have been 339 million pairs in 1963. Actual production was 320 million pairs. However, Italian imports have taken most of its growth.
(A chart on the above subject not printed in the RECORD.)
Counsel: Thomas F. Shannon, 1625 Eye Street NW., Washington, D.C.
National Shoe Manufacturers Association: President, Harold 0. Toor, Freeman-Toor Corp., New York, N.Y.; secretary, Harold R. Giblin; treasurer, Robert H. Leverenz, Leverenz Shoe Co., Sheboygan, Wis.; executive vice president, Merrill A. Watson.
New England Shoe and Leather Association: President, Bernard S. Shapiro, American Girl Shoe Co., Boston, Mass.; executive vice president, Maxwell Field; vice president, Joseph Bloom, A. Sandler Co., Needham Heights, Mass.; vice president, Robert N. Bass, G. H. Bass & Co., Wilton, Maine; vice president, Richard N. Sears, Bates Shoe Co., Webster, Mass.; secretary, Edward L. Davis; treasurer, Helmer C. Johanson, Eagle Shoe Manufacturing Co., inc., Everett, Mass.
St. Louis Shoe Manufacturers Association: Chairman, Joseph J. Goldstein, Kalmon Shoe Manufacturing Co., St. Louis, Mo.; president, William S. Kaplan, Carmo Shoe Manufacturing Co., Union, Mo.; executive secretary, Arthur H. Gale; first vice president, Joseph G. Helmbacher, Brown Shoe Co., St. Louis, Mo.; second vice president, J. Roger Johansen, Johansen Bros. Shoe Co., St. Louis, Mo.; treasurer, Roy F. Sundling, Brauer Bros. Shoe Co., St. Louis, Mo.
Foreign Trade Committee for the Shoe Manufacturing Industry: Chairman, Roy St. Jean, Brown Shoe Co., St. Louis, Mo., vice chairman, Alan Goldstein, Plymouth Shoe Co., Middleboro, Mass.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also place in the RECORD a copy of the proposal and ask unanimous consent to have printed which has been submitted to the Italian shoe industry, under an agreement reached with representatives of that industry. That proposal is dated June 6, 1964.
There being no objection, the proposal was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
A PROPOSAL, JUNE 6, 1964, ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONAL CALZATURIFICI ITALIANI FROM FOREIGN TRADE COMMITTEE FOR THE SHOE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS UNION AND UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
The shoe manufacturing industry of the United States met at an important conference in Milan, Italy, on May 19-20,1964, with representatives of ANCI, and U.S. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE and Mr. Robert Collins, an official of the U.S. State Department in attendance. In accordance with the consensus reached at this conference, the U.S. shoe manufacturing industry, management and labor, submits its recommendations for a course of action to be pursued by it and the Italian footwear manufacturing industry. These recommendations are herein below set forth in resolution form. Following such proposal is a statement of the U.S. industry's position.
"PROPOSAL
"Recognizing the continuing seriousness and urgency of the problems posed by developments in world trade and in the products of our industry; and
"Recalling that our President, the late Honorable John F. Kennedy and Hon. Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as 33 U.S. Senators and 235 Representatives, have expressed their intention of safeguarding our industry and the standard of living of the hundreds of thousands of men and women we employ; and
"Being mindful of the facts that in many parts of the world international trade is not conducted on the basis of normal, free, and fair trade practices; and
"Recognizing the severe competition that both our countries face from lower-wage countries such as Japan and Hong Kong; and
"Recognizing the need for the orderly marketing development of world trade in the products of our industry among all countries; and
"Desiring to develop an equitable solution of the mutual problems affecting both our countries: Therefore, we
"Resolve, (1) That the Italian shoe manufacturing industry recognize that there is a need for an early agreement among governments covering world trade in the products of our industries;
" (2) That both the Italian and, U. S. shoe manufacturing industries request the prompt convening of a meeting of our governments for the purpose of concluding such an agreement; and
"(3) That each of our industries suggest to its government an agreement to cover world trade and especially U.S. imports of footwear and establish a total import share of the U.S. market at a percentage level on a category-by-category basis."
[TRADE GROUP STATEMENT OF POSITION OMITTED]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to make a final statement on this matter of import quotas as it affects the shoe industry, and in making these remarks, I want to pay my respects to the junior Senator from Massachusetts who, unfortunately, cannot be here to speak out with me on this important matter. TED KENNEDY has worked unceasingly, and with the greatest of sincerity and persistence to help our congressional delegation and the industry work out effective solutions. He has been always available for counsel, and he has given his full cooperation. I want to say to my colleagues here today, that TED has asked that he be recorded as joining in the statement I am about to make, and I thank him most sincerely for his support. We all wish him an early return to the State so we can again enjoy his enthusiasm and inspiration.
The shoe industry employs over 300,000 workers with a payroll of almost a billion dollars a year. Its sales amount to around $4.5 billion annually. New England accounts for about one-third of domestic shoe production and earnings.
This industry is very competitive, with a low percentage of industrial concentration. At the same time, its rate of profit is far below the Nation's average, and it is operating at less than 70 percent of capacity. A 1962 study indicated an exceedingly high rate of failures for the industry.
Since 1955, shoe imports have increased by substantial proportions, and the industry is threatened by greater increases in the immediate years ahead. At the present time imports are more than 13 percent of U.S. production. It is estimated that by 1965, they will total 125 million pairs of shoes, or 20 percent of U.S. production. Exports, on the other hand, have decreased since 1955. According to the industry, even at a 2-percent growth rate, almost 50,000 jobs will be eliminated by imports at the end of 1965. The bulk of the imports come from Japan and Italy with labor costs some 20 to 30 percent of our own costs per hour.
This is not just a New England problem, but one which is having a substantial impact on employment and earnings in over 1,300 factories located in 38 States. Many of these factories are located in small towns and cities where unemployment is already a major issue.
For several years shoe manufacturers have been battling to protect the jobs of shoe workers from a flood of imports. In leather and leather-type shoes alone imports in 1963 cost 12,000 job opportunities.
The shoe manufacturers foreign trade committee, with the support of the labor groups and congressional representatives, has sparked the following program for the protection of the American shoe industry and its workers:
First. Meetings have been held with Congressmen and Senators to inform Congress of the impact of imports on the shoe industry.
Second. An orderly marketing amendment which would slow down the growth of imports and still permit foreign-made shoes to share in the growth of the domestic market was developed and added to the Trade Expansion Act passed in 1962.
Third. A committee drive culminated in a petition to the late President Kennedy, signed by 235 Congressmen and 35 Senators, urging this orderly marketing arrangement be applied to shoe imports.
Fourth. A group of congressional, management and labor representatives met with President Kennedy in October 1963, at which the industry asked: (a) that no further reductions be made in shoe tariffs in the coming GATT negotiations; (b) that an orderly marketing arrangement be developed with Japan and Italy; (c) that the State Department arrange discussions between representatives of the U.S. shoe manufacturing industry and representatives of industry and government of Italy and Japan to point out to these nations that their own best interests called for restraints on imports of footwear to the United States; (d) that the President establish an industry committee to help shoe manufacturers in their import problems; and (e) that domestic and import statistics be expanded to reflect import trends more accurately.
On April 23, 1964, a congressional, management and labor group representing shoe manufacturers met with President Johnson who reaffirmed this arrangement. The President was shown samples of imported footwear and expressed astonishment at the difference in price.
A week later congressional, management and labor representatives met with Under Secretary of State Ball who agreed to assist the industry in setting up meetings with Italian manufacturers in Italy. These meetings were held the latter part of May. The Italian manufacturers were informed of the growing concern in the United States over imports and urged to persuade their government to work out an orderly marketing program with the U.S. Government on footwear imports.
An industry representative has already held discussions with Japanese manuf acturers and acquainted them with the growing concern in America over footwear imports from that country.
The support and encouragement given by elected representatives in Congress has been a vital factor in maintaining the interest of these foreign countries in this program.
Now Mr. President, I want to be very frank here. This industry holds just as important a place in the economy of our New England area as the meat industry does in our Western States. It has a historical significance; it has a great economic importance in our growth, and in the lives of our thousands of families who depend upon it for their necessities of living. We are not just talking here. We are doing every conceivable thing we can to promote the shoe industry, and to assist it in its honest effort to improve to the benefit of our area.
The President of the United States knows well of our efforts, and he has given us his personal help and concern for our problem. Therefore, because we have assurances from the Executive that we are being supported in our efforts to obtain a restriction of imports by voluntary negotiations, and because these negotiations are not yet concluded so we can know what to expect in the future, I am withholding an amendment seeking quotas on shoe imports for the time being.
But I want to serve warning on my colleagues, that if we do not get this matter straightened out to our satisfaction by the next session of Congress, we will, indeed, be back here on this floor with some positive legislation, with a positive program, with a constructive program, which will go to the heart of this crucial import problem. Imports are mounting. At a time when many industries in this country are growing and enjoying prosperity, the shoe industry is suffering -- not because of any lack of imagination and hard work being exerted by the thousands of skilled, loyal shoeworkers and their managers, but because of the onslaught of thousands and thousands of foreign shoes being made by workers at substandard wages.
We are determined on this venture.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding to me.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mansfield amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. I doubt if those who have not been in close touch with the Western States can realize the demoralization that has occurred in a once profitable, strong, and virile industry -- the livestock industry.
Few people realize the backbone that this industry furnishes generally to agriculture in a period in which row crops, small grains, and other type crops have been reduced by quota allocations. The turning over of fertile fields and farmlands to grass and the consequent grazing of livestock has helped take up the slack in farm income. For many years the price of beef on the range was one of the most stable items of farm production. Few people realize that more than $20 out of every $100 realized in sales of agricultural products is derived from cattle and calves.
Therefore, any action that is taken or condoned against the cattle business sends a shock wave through the American economy as a whole. The growing threat to the beef industry resulting from imports that occurred in 1963 portends disaster for the cattle industry. Cattlemen must work, not on a 1-year basis, but on at least a 3-year cycle if they are to carry on from calves to the finally marketable beef animal with ultimate revenue value.
Illustrating further the importance of the cattle business, the live-weight sales of beef have grown from about 17.5 billion pounds in 1940 to about 38 billion pounds in 1962, or an increase in 22 years of more than 217 percent, while 50 percent of the harvested crops is fed to beef cattle and calves, and over 1 billion acres of land is used for pasture -- 60 percent of farms in the United States have cattle on them.
The tariff that was once 6 cents a pound was cut in half in 1947 to 3 cents a pound. This was not so bad, as beef cattle prices at that time were around $15 a hundredweight. But as the cost of production and necessarily the price of the animals went up to around $22 or $25, the $3 tax per hundredweight declined from around 20 percent of ad valorem in 1957 to only 13.6 percent in 1962. Thus, the protection of the industry has gradually been lowered to the point where the influence of tariffs against imports does not exist.
I have just received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service a publication entitled "Farm Income Situation." The publication shows once again the unfavorable ratio between urban and rural incomes. It reads:
The per capita disposable income of the farm population, which is personal income after deduction of personal tax and nontax payments, was about 63 percent of that of nonfarm people in 1963.
So we are in a period of prosperity in the cities, but in the rural areas we still must battle a recession which has been brought about largely by the decline in the market value of beef animals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the glum story continues when the report deals with farm commodity receipts. It reads:
The estimated $9.6 billion received from farm marketings of livestock and livestock products in the first half of 1964 was little different than in January-June 1963. Cash receipts from cattle and calves and hog marketings were lower as the drop in average prices received by farmers for meat animals more than offset a much larger volume of slaughter than in the first half of 1963.
Farmers' receipts from marketings of cattle and calves were estimated about $100 million lower in the first half of this year than last. Slightly higher milk prices than in the first half of 1963 resulted in an estimated increase of some $100 million in dairy products receipts in the first half of 1964.
In order to stay even, they had to liquidate a substantial portion of their herds; and only by selling more animals, they did manage to come out about the same.
The continued slump in the price of livestock requires action. I feel that the quota provisions established by the Mansfield amendment would do for the American cattle raiser what other nations have done to protect their agricultural incomes from devastating imports. I believe that the Mansfield amendment to the bill should be agreed to.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment. I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, line 21, it is proposed to strike "168,500" and insert "150,000."
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if I were to give a title to the speech I am about to make, it would be: "The Time Has Come To Protect the Interests of the American People First."
A very interesting discussion has taken place on the floor of the Senate today by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN].
I say to the Senator from Rhode Island and to the Senator from Maine that I have always supported them in their endeavors to protect the legitimate interests of the textile industry of this country. I intend to continue to do so. But I cannot follow the logic of the position that because the Mansfield amendment is not all encompassing, therefore the Mansfield amendment should be defeated. We must start somewhere. We must set some precedents. We must teach some lessons. I think this is a good proposal to start with.
I also state, in partial reply to the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], that I do not support continuation of the broad power that is now vested in the President of the United States in regard to the Trade Expansion Act and the Reciprocal Trade Act. No reflection is meant to be cast on any President, but we must face the facts of experience. The facts of experience show that the President of the United States needs a congressional check on his discretionary powers in this field of trade. The Presidency of the United States should not be given the broad powers that we have given in legislation now on the books in regard to foreign trade.
We have learned that the Trade Expansion Act and the Reciprocal Trade Act have not protected the best interests of the American people. I would be the first to vote again, as I did many years ago in the Senate, for a Reciprocal Trade Act. I support the basic principles of a Reciprocal Trade Act, if it is reciprocal. But our experience shows that the American people have been played for suckers under the Reciprocal Trade Act. There has been little reciprocity in it.
We have not received reciprocal treatment from our alleged allies, particularly in Europe.
The Senator from Rhode Island emphasizes the importance of more conferences and more negotiations. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] gave the Senate a firsthand account of his own experiences as a member of the American delegation to Milan, Italy. I believe I paraphrase him accurately when I say that the Senator from Maine pointed out that at first the representatives of other nations did not even wish to talk, until finally the American delegation pointed out the increasing concern in the Congress of the United States about their trade policy. When the delegation started using the statistics showing that 32 Senators and more than 200 Members of the House were greatly concerned about the policies of foreign trade as being insisted upon by Italy, then and only then were the Italians willing to talk. All they have been willing to do is to talk, and not agree.
Mr. President, I suggest that we watch out for a "divide and conquer" procedure in connection with the problem here in the Senate. In my judgment, we could not make a greater mistake than to take the position that because the Mansfield bill is not all encompassing, therefore it ought to be voted down.